Yes. Often lost is that Stalin was as evil at Hitler and possibly worse. Then, post war, the west had some obligation to appease him which, of course, leads to the Cold War many years later.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

On the plus side almost all of that money comes back to us as it's spent with American defense contractors.

---

Gee that makes it all worthwhile.

We are borrowing additional billions of dollars in the hope that some of it is spent for bombs, bullets and missiles.

No doubt the vast majority of Americans are supportive of such fiscal priorities.

---

Look there's very few bright spots here. The two that come to mind are
1) we aren't doing the fighting
2) the money we are giving away is essentially coming right back to us

I didn't say I agreed. I didn't say it's good fiscal policy (like anyone really gives a **** about that anyhow). Fact is most of the foreign aid we give away comes right back to us via the military industrial complex and by most I mean almost 100% of it.

Now we can argue why we spend money on all sorts of worthless government projects though I suspect we probably agree.

---

I respect your opinion.

But most Americans do not support this insane give away.

Especially when so many are working 2 jobs just to stay fed.

L

---

I don't recall saying most Americans did. In fact, I'm quite sure I never said that.

---

Agreed

You certainly did not.

Simply repeating the obvious that most Americans do not want to give Ukraine even more billions .


BTW , wonder how the Russians feel about our representatives waving Ukrainian flags in the middle of our capital building.

Just imagine how Americans would feel if the situation was reversed .

Yet if Russia finally retaliates our media will be 'shocked'.

---

New York Post
Most voters in battleground House districts favor Ukraine aid: poll

Amajority of voters in battleground congressional districts support sending more aid to Ukraine while a plurality of GOP primary voters in deep-red districts also back military assistance for Kyiv in its war against Russia, according to new polls exclusively shared with The Post.


The February poll found that 60% of battleground district voters are in favor of all forms of US aid, with support highest among those 50-64 years old (60%) and 65 and older (80%).

A majority of Republican voters in battleground districts for the 2024 election favor more US aid for Ukraine, according to a poll exclusively shared with The Post. AP Provided by New York Post

A slight majority of battleground voters under 35 (52%) and a plurality of those 35-49 (48%) also backed the additional aid.

Just 34% of all swing district voters were against the funding, while 6% said they did not know whether they supported it.

The survey also showed a majority of Republicans in safe GOP House seats strongly agree that Russian President Vladimir Putin "is an enemy of the United States" and "wants to reestablish the Soviet Union's sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe."

In total, 86% of Republican primary voters in deep-red districts had an unfavorable opinion of Putin, and 64% of them strongly agreed that "Russia had no cause and was wrong to invade Ukraine."

Another poll, taken in March, also revealed that 46% of safe district GOP voters back at least the provision of military aid for Ukraine, compared with 40% who oppose all forms of US assistance to Kyiv.

"

---

Classic propaganda 'cherry picking '.

Bottom line the vast majority of Americans did not want Ukraine to get still another 60 BILLION dollars our country will have to BORROW in order to give it away .

---

At best, the American people are 50-50 on that question. And I can bury you with polling on the question.

Wording matters. If one asks "would you like for the Ukraine War to end" or "should there be a negotiated settlement immediately"…well, you get very high "yes" numbers.


But if you ask a different question like "do you want Russia to win the Ukraine War"….the numbers are different.


Polling question on funding "too much or too little" is 45/45. Dead split.

Don't project your feelings into the argument. Very few people actually care about the issue driving your own opposition to the war - the deficit. A large majority wants Ukraine rather than Russia to win. It's getting there that's the problem.

---

We have to BORROW the 60 BILLION that we then GIVE AWAY to another country while our own citizens struggle to make ends meet.

Put that simple reality into your ****ing polls and see what the results would be.

---

We are borrowing +1000x that to give away to ourselves, too....so everyone is fat dumb happy. Literally, nobody cares about the deficit, or the debt. Never, ever, not once in my life have I seen deficits be the driving factor of an election. Yet, that is what you and most of the reactionary right are using to justify a litany of bad decisions on things that have nothing to do with deficits. It's like you want to lose arguments and elections just so you can be jaded about losing arguments and elections.

I'm in the realist school of thought on foreign policy. It's just so obvious that's the way the world actually works that I'm at a loss to explain how anyone could contest the point. Russian victory in the war in Ukraine drastically increases the chances for war between Nato and Russia, for a long list of reasons. We cannot just "let it happen." Russia must be stopped, or costs go up - more troops in Europe, more weapons in Europe, more military bases in Europe, more foreign aid to stabilize the Eastern tier of Nato. And yet, you guys respond to that not with an alternative application of realism, or an impassioned argument for idealism. You just want to stick your head in a hole and ignore it all, because.....deficits......

Just completely daft that anyone would make the argument that letting Russia have Ukraine will save money.

---

Russia has had Ukraine for centuries .

It's bizarre how only recently has the US decided to spend billions of dollars and risk WW3 on Ukraine's behalf.

But these proxy wars just turn you internet Rambo's on.

From the safety of your keyboards you play rough and tough.
Knowing full well the majority of the American people want their concerns addressed before those of Ukraine.

A country most US citizens STILL could not find on a map.

---

Few Americans could have found Poland or Czechoslovakia or Tunisia or the Solomon Islands on a map in 1939, either, yet hundreds of thousands died fighting to liberate them.

WWIII has already started buddy. You can't sit it out. It will find you, eventually, unless you engage it where it is. Right now, that's Ukraine and Israel.

---

Anyone like you who is so glib about entering into WW3 on behalf of Ukraine is no 'buddy' of mine.

Step back from the safety of your keyboard and think about it.

We lost over 500,000 dead in WW2 and for nothing.

The dictator Stalin replaced Hitler throughout most of Eastern Europe and Japanese dominance in China / Manchuria was replaced by the Communists.

Yet you are obviously cranked up about this nightmare. As long of course that no one in your family acquires the 'privilege' of dying or getting permanently crippled fighting to 'save' Europe still again.

Just to be clear, we were not particularly involved in WW2 except through lend/lease until the Japanese stupidly decided to bomb Pearl Harbor.

American sentiment at the time was very much like your feelings now. Avoid war at all costs and we essentially did that until there wasn't much of an option.

You could buy the conspiracy that we "allowed" PH so we could enter the war but that's all it is.

We have had a remarkably quiet time the last 50 or so years. History is almost entirely full of war time and very little peace. Peace time is not the default or the norm.

nein51 said:

---

Just to be clear, we were not particularly involved in WW2 except through lend/lease until the Japanese stupidly decided to bomb Pearl Harbor.

American sentiment at the time was very much like your feelings now. Avoid war at all costs and we essentially did that until there wasn't much of an option.

---

Yea one of the most remarable "on goals" in history.

The Japanese had captured most of Asia (and the USA was not that interesting in getting involved)

The great Japanese military leader and strategist Admiral Yamamoto said it was a mistake.

[The other common quotation attributed to Yamamoto predicting the future outcome of a naval war against the United States is, "I can run wild for six months... after that, I have no expectation of success". As it happened, the Battle of Midway, the critical naval battle considered to be the turning point of the War in the Pacific, concluded exactly 6 months after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Similar to the above quotation was another quotation: Yamamoto, when once asked his opinion on the war, pessimistically said that the only way for Japan to win the war was to dictate terms in the White House. Yamamoto's meaning was that military victory, in a protracted war against an opponent with as much of a population and industrial advantage as the United States possessed, was completely impossible, a rebuff to the Kantai Kessen decisive Battle Doctrine of those who thought that winning a single major battle against the United States Navy would end the war, just as the Japanese victory in the Battle of Tsushima had ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.]

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

On the plus side almost all of that money comes back to us as it's spent with American defense contractors.

---

Gee that makes it all worthwhile.

We are borrowing additional billions of dollars in the hope that some of it is spent for bombs, bullets and missiles.

No doubt the vast majority of Americans are supportive of such fiscal priorities.

---

Look there's very few bright spots here. The two that come to mind are
1) we aren't doing the fighting
2) the money we are giving away is essentially coming right back to us

I didn't say I agreed. I didn't say it's good fiscal policy (like anyone really gives a **** about that anyhow). Fact is most of the foreign aid we give away comes right back to us via the military industrial complex and by most I mean almost 100% of it.

Now we can argue why we spend money on all sorts of worthless government projects though I suspect we probably agree.

---

I respect your opinion.

But most Americans do not support this insane give away.

Especially when so many are working 2 jobs just to stay fed.

L

---

I don't recall saying most Americans did. In fact, I'm quite sure I never said that.

---

Agreed

You certainly did not.

Simply repeating the obvious that most Americans do not want to give Ukraine even more billions .


BTW , wonder how the Russians feel about our representatives waving Ukrainian flags in the middle of our capital building.

Just imagine how Americans would feel if the situation was reversed .

Yet if Russia finally retaliates our media will be 'shocked'.

---

New York Post
Most voters in battleground House districts favor Ukraine aid: poll

Amajority of voters in battleground congressional districts support sending more aid to Ukraine while a plurality of GOP primary voters in deep-red districts also back military assistance for Kyiv in its war against Russia, according to new polls exclusively shared with The Post.


The February poll found that 60% of battleground district voters are in favor of all forms of US aid, with support highest among those 50-64 years old (60%) and 65 and older (80%).

A majority of Republican voters in battleground districts for the 2024 election favor more US aid for Ukraine, according to a poll exclusively shared with The Post. AP Provided by New York Post

A slight majority of battleground voters under 35 (52%) and a plurality of those 35-49 (48%) also backed the additional aid.

Just 34% of all swing district voters were against the funding, while 6% said they did not know whether they supported it.

The survey also showed a majority of Republicans in safe GOP House seats strongly agree that Russian President Vladimir Putin "is an enemy of the United States" and "wants to reestablish the Soviet Union's sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe."

In total, 86% of Republican primary voters in deep-red districts had an unfavorable opinion of Putin, and 64% of them strongly agreed that "Russia had no cause and was wrong to invade Ukraine."

Another poll, taken in March, also revealed that 46% of safe district GOP voters back at least the provision of military aid for Ukraine, compared with 40% who oppose all forms of US assistance to Kyiv.

"

---

Classic propaganda 'cherry picking '.

Bottom line the vast majority of Americans did not want Ukraine to get still another 60 BILLION dollars our country will have to BORROW in order to give it away .

---

At best, the American people are 50-50 on that question. And I can bury you with polling on the question.

Wording matters. If one asks "would you like for the Ukraine War to end" or "should there be a negotiated settlement immediately"…well, you get very high "yes" numbers.


But if you ask a different question like "do you want Russia to win the Ukraine War"….the numbers are different.


Polling question on funding "too much or too little" is 45/45. Dead split.

Don't project your feelings into the argument. Very few people actually care about the issue driving your own opposition to the war - the deficit. A large majority wants Ukraine rather than Russia to win. It's getting there that's the problem.

---

We have to BORROW the 60 BILLION that we then GIVE AWAY to another country while our own citizens struggle to make ends meet.

Put that simple reality into your ****ing polls and see what the results would be.

---

We are borrowing +1000x that to give away to ourselves, too....so everyone is fat dumb happy. Literally, nobody cares about the deficit, or the debt. Never, ever, not once in my life have I seen deficits be the driving factor of an election. Yet, that is what you and most of the reactionary right are using to justify a litany of bad decisions on things that have nothing to do with deficits. It's like you want to lose arguments and elections just so you can be jaded about losing arguments and elections.

I'm in the realist school of thought on foreign policy. It's just so obvious that's the way the world actually works that I'm at a loss to explain how anyone could contest the point. Russian victory in the war in Ukraine drastically increases the chances for war between Nato and Russia, for a long list of reasons. We cannot just "let it happen." Russia must be stopped, or costs go up - more troops in Europe, more weapons in Europe, more military bases in Europe, more foreign aid to stabilize the Eastern tier of Nato. And yet, you guys respond to that not with an alternative application of realism, or an impassioned argument for idealism. You just want to stick your head in a hole and ignore it all, because.....deficits......

Just completely daft that anyone would make the argument that letting Russia have Ukraine will save money.

---

Russia has had Ukraine for centuries .

It's bizarre how only recently has the US decided to spend billions of dollars and risk WW3 on Ukraine's behalf.

But these proxy wars just turn you internet Rambo's on.

From the safety of your keyboards you play rough and tough.
Knowing full well the majority of the American people want their concerns addressed before those of Ukraine.

A country most US citizens STILL could not find on a map.

---

Few Americans could have found Poland or Czechoslovakia or Tunisia or the Solomon Islands on a map in 1939, either, yet hundreds of thousands died fighting to liberate them.

WWIII has already started buddy. You can't sit it out. It will find you, eventually, unless you engage it where it is. Right now, that's Ukraine and Israel.

---

We lost over 500,000 dead in WW2 and for nothing.

---

C'mon, you don't really believe that do you?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Ukraine asked for our help in establishing a form of Government that gives the people more freedom.
Russia rolled tanks over a sovereign border.
End of story, Russia lost any moral high ground in 2014.

---

lol nice spin but when the heck to Zelensky and his non elections holding regime ever ask for that?

Not to mention there is no evidence that the extremely corrupt Ukrainian state is interested in "freedom".

What it is interested in (or at least the central and western parts of the country) is in being away from Moscow.

Fair enough.

Again how is that something that American taxpayers should be paying for? Or fighting a proxy war over?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Ukraine asked for our help in establishing a form of Government that gives the people more freedom.
Russia rolled tanks over a sovereign border.
End of story, Russia lost any moral high ground in 2014.

---

lol nice spin but when the heck to Zelensky and his non elections holding regime ever ask for that?

Not to mention there is no evidence that the extremely corrupt Ukrainian state is interested in "freedom".

What it is interested in (or at least the central and western parts of the country) is in being away from Moscow.

Fair enough.

Again how is that something that American taxpayers should be paying for? Or fighting a proxy war over?

---

The West has been courting them since pre-1990s. It is called credibility. You can't ask a Nation to stand up to the Soviets/Russia and when they do walk away. I know you and many others would, but there are other eyes on how we handle this.

Sweden and Finland in NATO is huge. That doesn't happen without US helping Ukraine.

---

1. The USSR and the Russian Federation are two sperate and very different entities. But I can see how you think it bolsters you case to try and confuse Americans into thinking they are the same.

2. DC should have never interfered in Ukraine in the first place...trying to pull it out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody and costly affair...and probably doomed to failure.

3. Sweden and Finland are minor issues. NATO already had the Baltic on lockdown and with troops in the Baltic States within easy striking distance of St. Petersburg. It was not a geo-strategic game changer.

If that is the one take away for why this bloody proxy war in Ukraine has been a good thing then its weak sauce

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Ukraine asked for our help in establishing a form of Government that gives the people more freedom.
Russia rolled tanks over a sovereign border.
End of story, Russia lost any moral high ground in 2014.

---

lol nice spin but when the heck to Zelensky and his non elections holding regime ever ask for that?

Not to mention there is no evidence that the extremely corrupt Ukrainian state is interested in "freedom".

What it is interested in (or at least the central and western parts of the country) is in being away from Moscow.

Fair enough.

Again how is that something that American taxpayers should be paying for? Or fighting a proxy war over?

---

The West has been courting them since pre-1990s. It is called credibility. You can't ask a Nation to stand up to the Soviets/Russia and when they do walk away. I know you and many others would, but there are other eyes on how we handle this.

Sweden and Finland in NATO is huge. That doesn't happen without US helping Ukraine.

---

1. The USSR and the Russian Federation are two sperate and very different entities. But I can see how you think it bolsters you case to try and confuse Americans into thinking they are the same.

2. DC should have never interfered in Ukraine in the first place...trying to pull it out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody and costly affair...and probably doomed to failure.

3. Sweden and Finland are minor issues. NATO already had the Baltic on lockdown and with troops in the Baltic States within easy striking distance of St. Petersburg. It was not a geo-strategic game changer.

If that is the one take away for why this bloody proxy war in Ukraine has been a good thing then its weak sauce

---

Everything is weak sauce! Hauling people away in rail cars to Russia, was weak sauce. Targeting utilities was weak sauce.

Let's face it, you are Pro-Russia and Pro-Putin, there is nothing that Putin can do that will justify the US helping Ukraine.

---

You have to make that argument because you want this proxy war. (a war you wont go fight yourself coward)

You are as bad as those back in 2003 who were attacking those advocating for foreign policy restraint as "Saddam loves"

Its so goofy you are just retreading talking points from 20 years ago.

---

All those years of sacrifice and investment are wasted to just let Putin now attack and take Nations.

But, go ahead and play the "you are not going to go" card. your way. Our you humming the music from "Hair!" as you type?

---

1. What nations? Putin has not attacked any NATO allied state....

Ukraine was never in the USA's economic or military orbit

2. "no going to fight" is a good card because it shows how hallow your line of argument it....the ukraine proxy war is the most super important thing and if we don't stop Putin he will have tanks parked outside the Paris city hall...but then you also don't seem to think it worth fighting for yourself.

If this war in Ukraine is that important than you need to go fight (they are begging for volunteers) and the USA needs to sent in ground forces and make this a full on war.

---

Sadly, if Putin did actually take over western Europe that might actually save it from NGO replacement migration from the 3rd world. I dont think he has any intentions of doing so, though. Europe will be a combo of the middle east and Africa by the end of the century.

muddybrazos said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Ukraine asked for our help in establishing a form of Government that gives the people more freedom.
Russia rolled tanks over a sovereign border.
End of story, Russia lost any moral high ground in 2014.

---

lol nice spin but when the heck to Zelensky and his non elections holding regime ever ask for that?

Not to mention there is no evidence that the extremely corrupt Ukrainian state is interested in "freedom".

What it is interested in (or at least the central and western parts of the country) is in being away from Moscow.

Fair enough.

Again how is that something that American taxpayers should be paying for? Or fighting a proxy war over?

---

The West has been courting them since pre-1990s. It is called credibility. You can't ask a Nation to stand up to the Soviets/Russia and when they do walk away. I know you and many others would, but there are other eyes on how we handle this.

Sweden and Finland in NATO is huge. That doesn't happen without US helping Ukraine.

---

1. The USSR and the Russian Federation are two sperate and very different entities. But I can see how you think it bolsters you case to try and confuse Americans into thinking they are the same.

2. DC should have never interfered in Ukraine in the first place...trying to pull it out of the Russian orbit was always going to be a bloody and costly affair...and probably doomed to failure.

3. Sweden and Finland are minor issues. NATO already had the Baltic on lockdown and with troops in the Baltic States within easy striking distance of St. Petersburg. It was not a geo-strategic game changer.

If that is the one take away for why this bloody proxy war in Ukraine has been a good thing then its weak sauce

---

Everything is weak sauce! Hauling people away in rail cars to Russia, was weak sauce. Targeting utilities was weak sauce.

Let's face it, you are Pro-Russia and Pro-Putin, there is nothing that Putin can do that will justify the US helping Ukraine.

---

You have to make that argument because you want this proxy war. (a war you wont go fight yourself coward)

You are as bad as those back in 2003 who were attacking those advocating for foreign policy restraint as "Saddam loves"

Its so goofy you are just retreading talking points from 20 years ago.

---

All those years of sacrifice and investment are wasted to just let Putin now attack and take Nations.

But, go ahead and play the "you are not going to go" card. your way. Our you humming the music from "Hair!" as you type?

---

1. What nations? Putin has not attacked any NATO allied state....

Ukraine was never in the USA's economic or military orbit

2. "no going to fight" is a good card because it shows how hallow your line of argument it....the ukraine proxy war is the most super important thing and if we don't stop Putin he will have tanks parked outside the Paris city hall...but then you also don't seem to think it worth fighting for yourself.

If this war in Ukraine is that important than you need to go fight (they are begging for volunteers) and the USA needs to sent in ground forces and make this a full on war.

---

Sadly, if Putin did actually take over western Europe that might actually save it from NGO replacement migration from the 3rd world. I dont think he has any intentions of doing so, though. Europe will be a combo of the middle east and Africa by the end of the century.

---

This is where I have been at Muddy.

The Globalists who control the US and EU are the bigger threat and we see it the general disorder, destruction, and population displacement with our very own eyes every day

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

On the plus side almost all of that money comes back to us as it's spent with American defense contractors.

---

Gee that makes it all worthwhile.

We are borrowing additional billions of dollars in the hope that some of it is spent for bombs, bullets and missiles.

No doubt the vast majority of Americans are supportive of such fiscal priorities.

---

Look there's very few bright spots here. The two that come to mind are
1) we aren't doing the fighting
2) the money we are giving away is essentially coming right back to us

I didn't say I agreed. I didn't say it's good fiscal policy (like anyone really gives a **** about that anyhow). Fact is most of the foreign aid we give away comes right back to us via the military industrial complex and by most I mean almost 100% of it.

Now we can argue why we spend money on all sorts of worthless government projects though I suspect we probably agree.

---

I respect your opinion.

But most Americans do not support this insane give away.

Especially when so many are working 2 jobs just to stay fed.

L

---

I don't recall saying most Americans did. In fact, I'm quite sure I never said that.

---

Agreed

You certainly did not.

Simply repeating the obvious that most Americans do not want to give Ukraine even more billions .


BTW , wonder how the Russians feel about our representatives waving Ukrainian flags in the middle of our capital building.

Just imagine how Americans would feel if the situation was reversed .

Yet if Russia finally retaliates our media will be 'shocked'.

---

New York Post
Most voters in battleground House districts favor Ukraine aid: poll

Amajority of voters in battleground congressional districts support sending more aid to Ukraine while a plurality of GOP primary voters in deep-red districts also back military assistance for Kyiv in its war against Russia, according to new polls exclusively shared with The Post.


The February poll found that 60% of battleground district voters are in favor of all forms of US aid, with support highest among those 50-64 years old (60%) and 65 and older (80%).

A majority of Republican voters in battleground districts for the 2024 election favor more US aid for Ukraine, according to a poll exclusively shared with The Post. AP Provided by New York Post

A slight majority of battleground voters under 35 (52%) and a plurality of those 35-49 (48%) also backed the additional aid.

Just 34% of all swing district voters were against the funding, while 6% said they did not know whether they supported it.

The survey also showed a majority of Republicans in safe GOP House seats strongly agree that Russian President Vladimir Putin "is an enemy of the United States" and "wants to reestablish the Soviet Union's sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe."

In total, 86% of Republican primary voters in deep-red districts had an unfavorable opinion of Putin, and 64% of them strongly agreed that "Russia had no cause and was wrong to invade Ukraine."

Another poll, taken in March, also revealed that 46% of safe district GOP voters back at least the provision of military aid for Ukraine, compared with 40% who oppose all forms of US assistance to Kyiv.

"

---

Classic propaganda 'cherry picking '.

Bottom line the vast majority of Americans did not want Ukraine to get still another 60 BILLION dollars our country will have to BORROW in order to give it away .

---

At best, the American people are 50-50 on that question. And I can bury you with polling on the question.

Wording matters. If one asks "would you like for the Ukraine War to end" or "should there be a negotiated settlement immediately"…well, you get very high "yes" numbers.


But if you ask a different question like "do you want Russia to win the Ukraine War"….the numbers are different.


Polling question on funding "too much or too little" is 45/45. Dead split.

Don't project your feelings into the argument. Very few people actually care about the issue driving your own opposition to the war - the deficit. A large majority wants Ukraine rather than Russia to win. It's getting there that's the problem.

---

We have to BORROW the 60 BILLION that we then GIVE AWAY to another country while our own citizens struggle to make ends meet.

Put that simple reality into your ****ing polls and see what the results would be.

---

We are borrowing +1000x that to give away to ourselves, too....so everyone is fat dumb happy. Literally, nobody cares about the deficit, or the debt. Never, ever, not once in my life have I seen deficits be the driving factor of an election. Yet, that is what you and most of the reactionary right are using to justify a litany of bad decisions on things that have nothing to do with deficits. It's like you want to lose arguments and elections just so you can be jaded about losing arguments and elections.

I'm in the realist school of thought on foreign policy. It's just so obvious that's the way the world actually works that I'm at a loss to explain how anyone could contest the point. Russian victory in the war in Ukraine drastically increases the chances for war between Nato and Russia, for a long list of reasons. We cannot just "let it happen." Russia must be stopped, or costs go up - more troops in Europe, more weapons in Europe, more military bases in Europe, more foreign aid to stabilize the Eastern tier of Nato. And yet, you guys respond to that not with an alternative application of realism, or an impassioned argument for idealism. You just want to stick your head in a hole and ignore it all, because.....deficits......

Just completely daft that anyone would make the argument that letting Russia have Ukraine will save money.

---

Russia has had Ukraine for centuries .

It's bizarre how only recently has the US decided to spend billions of dollars and risk WW3 on Ukraine's behalf.

But these proxy wars just turn you internet Rambo's on.

From the safety of your keyboards you play rough and tough.
Knowing full well the majority of the American people want their concerns addressed before those of Ukraine.

A country most US citizens STILL could not find on a map.

---

Few Americans could have found Poland or Czechoslovakia or Tunisia or the Solomon Islands on a map in 1939, either, yet hundreds of thousands died fighting to liberate them.

WWIII has already started buddy. You can't sit it out. It will find you, eventually, unless you engage it where it is. Right now, that's Ukraine and Israel.

---

We lost over 500,000 dead in WW2 and for nothing.

---

C'mon, you don't really believe that do you?

---

Let's review

A. Communists took over most of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe. Leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
B. The British Empire was economically unraveled leading to the horrors of the India - Pakistan partition with millions killed.
C. Communists took over China, Manchuria and North Korea; leading to the Korean War war and additional 36,000 Americans dead.
D. France's economic collapse which led to Vietnam's independence, then division into North and South. Which in tern resulted in the Vietnam War with another 57,000 Us dead.


Seriously, just how much more evidence do you require ?

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

On the plus side almost all of that money comes back to us as it's spent with American defense contractors.

---

Gee that makes it all worthwhile.

We are borrowing additional billions of dollars in the hope that some of it is spent for bombs, bullets and missiles.

No doubt the vast majority of Americans are supportive of such fiscal priorities.

---

Look there's very few bright spots here. The two that come to mind are
1) we aren't doing the fighting
2) the money we are giving away is essentially coming right back to us

I didn't say I agreed. I didn't say it's good fiscal policy (like anyone really gives a **** about that anyhow). Fact is most of the foreign aid we give away comes right back to us via the military industrial complex and by most I mean almost 100% of it.

Now we can argue why we spend money on all sorts of worthless government projects though I suspect we probably agree.

---

I respect your opinion.

But most Americans do not support this insane give away.

Especially when so many are working 2 jobs just to stay fed.

L

---

I don't recall saying most Americans did. In fact, I'm quite sure I never said that.

---

Agreed

You certainly did not.

Simply repeating the obvious that most Americans do not want to give Ukraine even more billions .


BTW , wonder how the Russians feel about our representatives waving Ukrainian flags in the middle of our capital building.

Just imagine how Americans would feel if the situation was reversed .

Yet if Russia finally retaliates our media will be 'shocked'.

---

New York Post
Most voters in battleground House districts favor Ukraine aid: poll

Amajority of voters in battleground congressional districts support sending more aid to Ukraine while a plurality of GOP primary voters in deep-red districts also back military assistance for Kyiv in its war against Russia, according to new polls exclusively shared with The Post.


The February poll found that 60% of battleground district voters are in favor of all forms of US aid, with support highest among those 50-64 years old (60%) and 65 and older (80%).

A majority of Republican voters in battleground districts for the 2024 election favor more US aid for Ukraine, according to a poll exclusively shared with The Post. AP Provided by New York Post

A slight majority of battleground voters under 35 (52%) and a plurality of those 35-49 (48%) also backed the additional aid.

Just 34% of all swing district voters were against the funding, while 6% said they did not know whether they supported it.

The survey also showed a majority of Republicans in safe GOP House seats strongly agree that Russian President Vladimir Putin "is an enemy of the United States" and "wants to reestablish the Soviet Union's sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe."

In total, 86% of Republican primary voters in deep-red districts had an unfavorable opinion of Putin, and 64% of them strongly agreed that "Russia had no cause and was wrong to invade Ukraine."

Another poll, taken in March, also revealed that 46% of safe district GOP voters back at least the provision of military aid for Ukraine, compared with 40% who oppose all forms of US assistance to Kyiv.

"

---

Classic propaganda 'cherry picking '.

Bottom line the vast majority of Americans did not want Ukraine to get still another 60 BILLION dollars our country will have to BORROW in order to give it away .

---

At best, the American people are 50-50 on that question. And I can bury you with polling on the question.

Wording matters. If one asks "would you like for the Ukraine War to end" or "should there be a negotiated settlement immediately"…well, you get very high "yes" numbers.


But if you ask a different question like "do you want Russia to win the Ukraine War"….the numbers are different.


Polling question on funding "too much or too little" is 45/45. Dead split.

Don't project your feelings into the argument. Very few people actually care about the issue driving your own opposition to the war - the deficit. A large majority wants Ukraine rather than Russia to win. It's getting there that's the problem.

---

We have to BORROW the 60 BILLION that we then GIVE AWAY to another country while our own citizens struggle to make ends meet.

Put that simple reality into your ****ing polls and see what the results would be.

---

We are borrowing +1000x that to give away to ourselves, too....so everyone is fat dumb happy. Literally, nobody cares about the deficit, or the debt. Never, ever, not once in my life have I seen deficits be the driving factor of an election. Yet, that is what you and most of the reactionary right are using to justify a litany of bad decisions on things that have nothing to do with deficits. It's like you want to lose arguments and elections just so you can be jaded about losing arguments and elections.

I'm in the realist school of thought on foreign policy. It's just so obvious that's the way the world actually works that I'm at a loss to explain how anyone could contest the point. Russian victory in the war in Ukraine drastically increases the chances for war between Nato and Russia, for a long list of reasons. We cannot just "let it happen." Russia must be stopped, or costs go up - more troops in Europe, more weapons in Europe, more military bases in Europe, more foreign aid to stabilize the Eastern tier of Nato. And yet, you guys respond to that not with an alternative application of realism, or an impassioned argument for idealism. You just want to stick your head in a hole and ignore it all, because.....deficits......

Just completely daft that anyone would make the argument that letting Russia have Ukraine will save money.

---

Russia has had Ukraine for centuries .

It's bizarre how only recently has the US decided to spend billions of dollars and risk WW3 on Ukraine's behalf.

But these proxy wars just turn you internet Rambo's on.

From the safety of your keyboards you play rough and tough.
Knowing full well the majority of the American people want their concerns addressed before those of Ukraine.

A country most US citizens STILL could not find on a map.

---

Few Americans could have found Poland or Czechoslovakia or Tunisia or the Solomon Islands on a map in 1939, either, yet hundreds of thousands died fighting to liberate them.

WWIII has already started buddy. You can't sit it out. It will find you, eventually, unless you engage it where it is. Right now, that's Ukraine and Israel.

---

We lost over 500,000 dead in WW2 and for nothing.

---

C'mon, you don't really believe that do you?

---

Let's review

A. Communists took over most of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe. Leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
B. The British Empire was economically unraveled leading to the horrors of the India - Pakistan partition with millions killed.
C. Communists took over China, Manchuria and North Korea; leading to the Korean War war and additional 36,000 Americans dead.
D. France's economic collapse which led to Vietnam's independence, then division into North and South. Which in tern resulted in the Vietnam War with another 57,000 Us dead.


Seriously, just how much more evidence do you require ?

---

All the understandable World War II nostalgia for national unity and a great military victory does obscure the reality of that war….

It came with half the world under communism and with two of the worst regimes in history (the USSR and Maos China) in positions of great strength

Plus the final collapse of the Western European empires and decades of chaos in Africa, the Middle East, and the 3rd world

Taken in context WWI and WWII were just plain disasters for Western civilization

And the further we get from those events the more later generations might look back on them and take them for the disasters they were

Careful guys... if you start claiming the outcome of WWII was disastrous for the native Western European populations you might be accused of anti-semitism and Greg Abbott might send Texas Rangers to kick in your door and take you to a concentration camp.

Let's just gloss over the fact that in a decade or less the native English, Irish, Scottish, French, German, Dutch, Swedish, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italians will be minorities in their own countries... parts of Eastern Europe and Scandinavia might hold out a bit longer. And yet the nationalist parties of these western European countries are getting no funding or weapons from our American government... only the nationalists in Israel receive those privileges.

nein51 said:

---

History is full of bad actors. We [the west] worked so hard to defeat Hitler that we partnered with Stalin who, one could make the case, was equally as bad if not worse.

At some point you have to decide which evil you prefer because if you're looking for a good or noble side of war it doesn't exist. Your noble is someone else's "oppressor". Or one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

---

Stalin was much worse than Hitler in many ways, not just the body count. Mao was far worse than either, especially in body count (maybe responsible for more Chinese deaths than total global deaths from WWII).

Ukraine is quite likely a huge money laundering scheme, possibly the biggest in history.

Biden's open border might very well be our own version of the Great Replacement Theory in action. While it sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, it's difficult to ignore apx 10 million illegals entering the US under Biden, many thousands of them flown all over the country (especially Florida & Texas), the preferential treatment the federal govt & fascist local governments are giving these criminals (at the expense of citizens & their jobs), the huge economic dislocations caused by all this (plus the massive govt spending & debt), and so many other unsettling policies of our corrupt governments.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

nein51 said:

---

History is full of bad actors. We [the west] worked so hard to defeat Hitler that we partnered with Stalin who, one could make the case, was equally as bad if not worse.

At some point you have to decide which evil you prefer because if you're looking for a good or noble side of war it doesn't exist. Your noble is someone else's "oppressor". Or one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

---

Stalin was much worse than Hitler in many ways, not just the body count. Mao was far worse than either, especially in body count (maybe responsible for more Chinese deaths than total global deaths from WWII).

---

Still amazing that Mao and the Communists killed (by war, purges, or famine) around 50 million Chinese

A staggering number

---

I've seen estimates considerable higher. I prefer the more conservative numbers but we must be aware of the possibility. This is the reality when dealing with a government that placed no value on human life. Unfortunately, the current Chinese regime is just as bad in brutality & is murderous behavior, although with a small fraction of the scale. Genocide is evil regardless of the numbers.

Even scarier is our own government's similar attitude: obsessed with killing as many babies as possible, also obsessed in fomenting perverted delusions among children as a pretext for mutilating their bodies, their role in helping the Chinese unleash biological warfare on the world (covid How many millions died?), the insane crime wave in America largely caused by incapacitating police & refusing to punish criminals (while releasing others from prison & bringing in millions of illegal aliens, many of whom are gang members or terrorists), and so on.

historian said:

---

Biden's open border might very well be our own version of the Great Replacement Theory in action. While it sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, it's difficult to ignore apx 10 million illegals entering the US under Biden, many thousands of them flown all over the country (especially Florida & Texas), the preferential treatment the federal govt & fascist local governments are giving these criminals (at the expense of citizens & their jobs), the huge economic dislocations caused by all this (plus the massive govt spending & debt), and so many other unsettling policies of our corrupt governments.

---

Could not agree more Historian.

We may disagree on Israel being "our greatest ally" but on everything else we are in complete alignment.

historian said:

---

nein51 said:

---

History is full of bad actors. We [the west] worked so hard to defeat Hitler that we partnered with Stalin who, one could make the case, was equally as bad if not worse.

At some point you have to decide which evil you prefer because if you're looking for a good or noble side of war it doesn't exist. Your noble is someone else's "oppressor". Or one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

---

Stalin was much worse than Hitler in many ways, not just the body count. Mao was far worse than either, especially in body count (maybe responsible for more Chinese deaths than total global deaths from WWII).

---

Stalin was worse because he was far more effective. Hitler was an egotist and not a particularly good military tactician. The Germans kept unreal meeting notes so you know he was a good listener…who then did whatever he wanted.

Stalin was a far better manager which made him better as his job. He also didn't care at all about the loss of human life.

Both Stalin and Mao pale in comparison to Pol Pot in terms of brutality.

historian said:

---

nein51 said:

---

History is full of bad actors. We [the west] worked so hard to defeat Hitler that we partnered with Stalin who, one could make the case, was equally as bad if not worse.

At some point you have to decide which evil you prefer because if you're looking for a good or noble side of war it doesn't exist. Your noble is someone else's "oppressor". Or one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

---

Stalin was much worse than Hitler in many ways, not just the body count. Mao was far worse than either, especially in body count (maybe responsible for more Chinese deaths than total global deaths from WWII).

---

In terms of body count Mao was directly responsible for the deaths of more people than anyone else in the 20th century and possibly ever.

Mostly through his intensional starvation of tens of millions of his own people.

And 95% of the American people don't have the slightest clue.
So they blissfully hope for socialism.