The_barBEARian said:

---

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.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honest questiion for all you boomercons and government-americans who have bought into the democrat Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative.

Today you're given the choice between leaving wherever you happen to live and living in:

(A) Downtown Philadelphia
(B) Downtown LA
(C) Downtown San Francisco
(D) Downtown Portland
(E) Downtown Chicago
(F) Harlem
(G) Downtown Moscow

Which do you choose? You cannot pick anywhere not on this list. This will go a long way towards revealing if you know what time it is.

I'm picking G every day and twice on Sunday. You know why that is? I'd prefer to live in a free place where half my salary is not subject to seizure, I'm not subject to racially motivated lawfare from corrupt prosecutors, stealing is still illegal, etc.

But go on pretending that we're in the middle of a cold war and Krushchev is still premier of the USSR.

---

I've been everywhere on that list multiple times.

First of all, it depends on where in the downtown areas of those cities.

But I'll answer your questions regardless. Moscow is last on my list. Outside of a few areas, it's mostly a hellhole that few could truly imagine. Top of head:

- Russians have voted with their feet . . . . Millions have left their country, including Moscow residents.
- Residents are far poorer than U.S. residents - around 80% poorer.
- Corruption is heavily embedded in the government and private cultures. It's just a way of life
- Utilities are unreliable. Water is awful. Do not drink
- Your average Moscow resident lives in a dingy, small apartment, most likely built in the 60s/70s.
- Many "middle class" apartment building lack consistent running water.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honest questiion for all you boomercons and government-americans who have bought into the democrat Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative.

Today you're given the choice between leaving wherever you happen to live and living in:

(A) Downtown Philadelphia
(B) Downtown LA
(C) Downtown San Francisco
(D) Downtown Portland
(E) Downtown Chicago
(F) Harlem
(G) Downtown Moscow

Which do you choose? You cannot pick anywhere not on this list. This will go a long way towards revealing if you know what time it is.

I'm picking G every day and twice on Sunday. You know why that is? I'd prefer to live in a free place where half my salary is not subject to seizure, I'm not subject to racially motivated lawfare from corrupt prosecutors, stealing is still illegal, etc.

But go on pretending that we're in the middle of a cold war and Krushchev is still premier of the USSR.

---

I've been everywhere on that list multiple times.

First of all, it depends on where in the downtown areas of those cities.

But I'll answer your questions regardless. Moscow is last on my list. Outside of a few areas, it's mostly a hellhole that few could truly imagine. Top of head:

- Russians have voted with their feet . . . . Millions have left their country, including Moscow residents.
- Residents are far poorer than U.S. residents - around 80% poorer.
- Corruption is heavily embedded in the government and private cultures. It's just a way of life
- Utilities are unreliable. Water is awful. Do not drink
- Your average Moscow resident lives in a dingy, small apartment, most likely built in the 60s/70s.
- Many "middle class" apartment building lack consistent running water.

---

Your points are solid

Another of many reasons that Russia is NOT a major threat to the USA or the massive NATO alliance

It's far more like Mexico (but Mexico has a growing population)

And yes people leave Russia when they can and not one retires back there

---

Quote:

---

It's like you want to lose arguments and elections just so you can be jaded about losing arguments and elections.

---

Realitybites said:

---

So your answer is "it depends". That's a start towards admitting that many of our major cities have become hellholes that are far worse than places overseas. Within the past five years, we've had one employee mugged in Philadelphia and one murdered on a business trip. A third ended up in prison in Guyana due to their own jackassery, but nowhere else we have operations has anyone run into any issue.

As far as the other points you feel compelled to share, some are completely out of date and others are just as applicable to cities in the west. Do some research into "civil asset forfeiture" among other things. Executives are kidnapped or killed (as was the case of Barry Sherman in Canada) all around the world. Crime happens, and prominent/wealthy people need to take more security precautions because of their positions. Nine of the top ten surveilled cities in the world are in China. Number ten? London. As far as wealth, there are a number of ways to measure it. Russia's household debt to GDP ratio is 22%. In the United States it is 75%. If your lifestyle "appears" to be wealthier, but you're financing it through debt, are you truly wealthy?

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honest questiion for all you boomercons and government-americans who have bought into the democrat Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative.

Today you're given the choice between leaving wherever you happen to live and living in:

(A) Downtown Philadelphia
(B) Downtown LA
(C) Downtown San Francisco
(D) Downtown Portland
(E) Downtown Chicago
(F) Harlem
(G) Downtown Moscow

Which do you choose? You cannot pick anywhere not on this list. This will go a long way towards revealing if you know what time it is.

I'm picking G every day and twice on Sunday. You know why that is? I'd prefer to live in a free place where half my salary is not subject to seizure, I'm not subject to racially motivated lawfare from corrupt prosecutors, stealing is still illegal, etc.

But go on pretending that we're in the middle of a cold war and Krushchev is still premier of the USSR.

---

I've been everywhere on that list multiple times.

First of all, it depends on where in the downtown areas of those cities.

But I'll answer your questions regardless. Moscow is last on my list. Outside of a few areas, it's mostly a hellhole that few could truly imagine. Top of head:

- Russians have voted with their feet . . . . Millions have left their country, including Moscow residents.
- Residents are far poorer than U.S. residents - around 80% poorer.
- Corruption is heavily embedded in the government and private cultures. It's just a way of life
- Utilities are unreliable. Water is awful. Do not drink
- Your average Moscow resident lives in a dingy, small apartment, most likely built in the 60s/70s.
- Many "middle class" apartment building lack consistent running water.

---

Your points are solid

Another of many reasons that Russia is NOT a major threat to the USA or the massive NATO alliance

It's far more like Mexico (but Mexico has a growing population)

And yes people leave Russia when they can and not one retires back there

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honest questiion for all you boomercons and government-americans who have bought into the democrat Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative.

Today you're given the choice between leaving wherever you happen to live and living in:

(A) Downtown Philadelphia
(B) Downtown LA
(C) Downtown San Francisco
(D) Downtown Portland
(E) Downtown Chicago
(F) Harlem
(G) Downtown Moscow

Which do you choose? You cannot pick anywhere not on this list. This will go a long way towards revealing if you know what time it is.

I'm picking G every day and twice on Sunday. You know why that is? I'd prefer to live in a free place where half my salary is not subject to seizure, I'm not subject to racially motivated lawfare from corrupt prosecutors, stealing is still illegal, etc.

But go on pretending that we're in the middle of a cold war and Krushchev is still premier of the USSR.

---

I've been everywhere on that list multiple times.

First of all, it depends on where in the downtown areas of those cities.

But I'll answer your questions regardless. Moscow is last on my list. Outside of a few areas, it's mostly a hellhole that few could truly imagine. Top of head:

- Russians have voted with their feet . . . . Millions have left their country, including Moscow residents.
- Residents are far poorer than U.S. residents - around 80% poorer.
- Corruption is heavily embedded in the government and private cultures. It's just a way of life
- Utilities are unreliable. Water is awful. Do not drink
- Your average Moscow resident lives in a dingy, small apartment, most likely built in the 60s/70s.
- Many "middle class" apartment building lack consistent running water.

---

Your points are solid

Another of many reasons that Russia is NOT a major threat to the USA or the massive NATO alliance

It's far more like Mexico (but Mexico has a growing population)

And yes people leave Russia when they can and not one retires back there

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honest questiion for all you boomercons and government-americans who have bought into the democrat Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative.

Today you're given the choice between leaving wherever you happen to live and living in:

(A) Downtown Philadelphia
(B) Downtown LA
(C) Downtown San Francisco
(D) Downtown Portland
(E) Downtown Chicago
(F) Harlem
(G) Downtown Moscow

Which do you choose? You cannot pick anywhere not on this list. This will go a long way towards revealing if you know what time it is.

I'm picking G every day and twice on Sunday. You know why that is? I'd prefer to live in a free place where half my salary is not subject to seizure, I'm not subject to racially motivated lawfare from corrupt prosecutors, stealing is still illegal, etc.

But go on pretending that we're in the middle of a cold war and Krushchev is still premier of the USSR.

---

I've been everywhere on that list multiple times.

First of all, it depends on where in the downtown areas of those cities.

But I'll answer your questions regardless. Moscow is last on my list. Outside of a few areas, it's mostly a hellhole that few could truly imagine. Top of head:

- Russians have voted with their feet . . . . Millions have left their country, including Moscow residents.
- Residents are far poorer than U.S. residents - around 80% poorer.
- Corruption is heavily embedded in the government and private cultures. It's just a way of life
- Utilities are unreliable. Water is awful. Do not drink
- Your average Moscow resident lives in a dingy, small apartment, most likely built in the 60s/70s.
- Many "middle class" apartment building lack consistent running water.

---

Your points are solid

Another of many reasons that Russia is NOT a major threat to the USA or the massive NATO alliance

It's far more like Mexico (but Mexico has a growing population)

And yes people leave Russia when they can and not one retires back there

---

China also is largely a hell-hole, but they are a major threat economically, militarily, and geopolitcally.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honest questiion for all you boomercons and government-americans who have bought into the democrat Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative.

Today you're given the choice between leaving wherever you happen to live and living in:

(A) Downtown Philadelphia
(B) Downtown LA
(C) Downtown San Francisco
(D) Downtown Portland
(E) Downtown Chicago
(F) Harlem
(G) Downtown Moscow

Which do you choose? You cannot pick anywhere not on this list. This will go a long way towards revealing if you know what time it is.

I'm picking G every day and twice on Sunday. You know why that is? I'd prefer to live in a free place where half my salary is not subject to seizure, I'm not subject to racially motivated lawfare from corrupt prosecutors, stealing is still illegal, etc.

But go on pretending that we're in the middle of a cold war and Krushchev is still premier of the USSR.

---

I've been everywhere on that list multiple times.

First of all, it depends on where in the downtown areas of those cities.

But I'll answer your questions regardless. Moscow is last on my list. Outside of a few areas, it's mostly a hellhole that few could truly imagine. Top of head:

- Russians have voted with their feet . . . . Millions have left their country, including Moscow residents.
- Residents are far poorer than U.S. residents - around 80% poorer.
- Corruption is heavily embedded in the government and private cultures. It's just a way of life
- Utilities are unreliable. Water is awful. Do not drink
- Your average Moscow resident lives in a dingy, small apartment, most likely built in the 60s/70s.
- Many "middle class" apartment building lack consistent running water.

---

Your points are solid

Another of many reasons that Russia is NOT a major threat to the USA or the massive NATO alliance

It's far more like Mexico (but Mexico has a growing population)

And yes people leave Russia when they can and not one retires back there

---

China also is largely a hell-hole, but they are a major threat economically, militarily, and geopolitcally.

---

Only for now is it a competitor

The one child policy is one the greatest mistakes any large nation has probably ever made.

China is losing 800,000 people a year from its population…and it will lose half its population over the next 45 years and be extremely old

Not to mention that its power comes from the fact that Western businesses moved their factories there….they may soon disconnect from China as is population collapses and its workers become old.

And it's richest most productive citizens don't want to stay in China…they leave as soon as they can (for Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, USA)

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honest questiion for all you boomercons and government-americans who have bought into the democrat Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative.

Today you're given the choice between leaving wherever you happen to live and living in:

(A) Downtown Philadelphia
(B) Downtown LA
(C) Downtown San Francisco
(D) Downtown Portland
(E) Downtown Chicago
(F) Harlem
(G) Downtown Moscow

Which do you choose? You cannot pick anywhere not on this list. This will go a long way towards revealing if you know what time it is.

I'm picking G every day and twice on Sunday. You know why that is? I'd prefer to live in a free place where half my salary is not subject to seizure, I'm not subject to racially motivated lawfare from corrupt prosecutors, stealing is still illegal, etc.

But go on pretending that we're in the middle of a cold war and Krushchev is still premier of the USSR.

---

I've been everywhere on that list multiple times.

First of all, it depends on where in the downtown areas of those cities.

But I'll answer your questions regardless. Moscow is last on my list. Outside of a few areas, it's mostly a hellhole that few could truly imagine. Top of head:

- Russians have voted with their feet . . . . Millions have left their country, including Moscow residents.
- Residents are far poorer than U.S. residents - around 80% poorer.
- Corruption is heavily embedded in the government and private cultures. It's just a way of life
- Utilities are unreliable. Water is awful. Do not drink
- Your average Moscow resident lives in a dingy, small apartment, most likely built in the 60s/70s.
- Many "middle class" apartment building lack consistent running water.

---

Your points are solid

Another of many reasons that Russia is NOT a major threat to the USA or the massive NATO alliance

It's far more like Mexico (but Mexico has a growing population)

And yes people leave Russia when they can and not one retires back there

---

China also is largely a hell-hole, but they are a major threat economically, militarily, and geopolitcally.

---

Only for now is it a competitor

The one child policy is one the greatest mistakes any large nation has probably ever made.

China is losing 800,000 people a year from its population…and it will lose half its population over the next 45 years and be extremely old

Not to mention that its power comes from the fact that Western businesses moved their factories there….they may soon disconnect from China as is population collapses and its workers become old.

And it's richest most productive citizens don't want to stay in China…they leave as soon as they can (for Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, USA)

---

What you describe is a ticking time bomb for US and Allies. China's window will open shortly and they will have about 10 years to win. We need more attention in Pacific and more allies. ANZUS, Philippines, Singapore Malaysia, and Japan/SKorea.

Pacific will be ships, subs and Island hopping. Need to prepare. Marines are well on their way. Navy needs more robust building program.

---

Disgusting.
Our blackmailed congress (and media) genuinely disgust me. https://t.co/AzRhZkhSj4

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) April 27, 2024

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Even the Singapore's and UAE are more Western then their surrounding Nations. Go to Singapore and then travel by ferry and look at the difference. UAE has made allowances for the West because they know that their future success is tied to the West's governance and economics. It works, the other's don't.

So, we should not allow Nations like Ukraine and other's align West? This is no coup or clandestine action, it is self-preservation. Travel throughout the West and then go to the East, it doesn't take a CIA operation to tell you where to go. I would say the intelligence operations are in response to the East's hard handed actions not letting people decide their future.

---

I've been to Singapore. The place is one of the jewels of the planet.

Our major cities are like Somalia compared to Singapore.

Neither Singapore nor the UAE are western nations.

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Even the Singapore's and UAE are more Western then their surrounding Nations. Go to Singapore and then travel by ferry and look at the difference. UAE has made allowances for the West because they know that their future success is tied to the West's governance and economics. It works, the other's don't.

So, we should not allow Nations like Ukraine and other's align West? This is no coup or clandestine action, it is self-preservation. Travel throughout the West and then go to the East, it doesn't take a CIA operation to tell you where to go. I would say the intelligence operations are in response to the East's hard handed actions not letting people decide their future.

---

I've been to Singapore. The place is one of the jewels of the planet.

Unfortunately our major cities are like Somalia compared to Singapore.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Even the Singapore's and UAE are more Western then their surrounding Nations. Go to Singapore and then travel by ferry and look at the difference. UAE has made allowances for the West because they know that their future success is tied to the West's governance and economics. It works, the other's don't.

So, we should not allow Nations like Ukraine and other's align West? This is no coup or clandestine action, it is self-preservation. Travel throughout the West and then go to the East, it doesn't take a CIA operation to tell you where to go. I would say the intelligence operations are in response to the East's hard handed actions not letting people decide their future.

---

I've been to Singapore. The place is one of the jewels of the planet.

Unfortunately our major cities are like Somalia compared to Singapore.

---

The Founder of modern Singapore is persona non grata in the West today.

(Lee Kuan Yew)

Liberals and progressives don't like his views on race, homosexuality, and women

[Lee invoked genetics to justify his enforced racial harmony and service distribution: "The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more … the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow," he said in 1997, in an interview for the book "Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas."

"If I tell Singaporeans we are all equal regardless of race, language, religion, culture, then they will say, 'Look, I'm doing poorly. You are responsible.' But I can show that from British times, certain groups have always done poorly, in mathematics and in science. But I'm not God, I can't change you …" That was in 2002, in the book "Success Stories."]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/lee-kuan-yews-hard-truths/

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Even the Singapore's and UAE are more Western then their surrounding Nations. Go to Singapore and then travel by ferry and look at the difference. UAE has made allowances for the West because they know that their future success is tied to the West's governance and economics. It works, the other's don't.

So, we should not allow Nations like Ukraine and other's align West? This is no coup or clandestine action, it is self-preservation. Travel throughout the West and then go to the East, it doesn't take a CIA operation to tell you where to go. I would say the intelligence operations are in response to the East's hard handed actions not letting people decide their future.

---

I've been to Singapore. The place is one of the jewels of the planet.

Unfortunately our major cities are like Somalia compared to Singapore.

---

The Founder of modern Singapore is persona non grata in the West today.

(Lee Kuan Yew)

Liberals and progressives don't like his views on race, homosexuality, and women

[Lee invoked genetics to justify his enforced racial harmony and service distribution: "The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more … the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow," he said in 1997, in an interview for the book "Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas."

"If I tell Singaporeans we are all equal regardless of race, language, religion, culture, then they will say, 'Look, I'm doing poorly. You are responsible.' But I can show that from British times, certain groups have always done poorly, in mathematics and in science. But I'm not God, I can't change you …" That was in 2002, in the book "Success Stories."]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/lee-kuan-yews-hard-truths/

---

Ok, you know more about Singapore than I do. I went for work and it was very nice and Western. My mistake.

---

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 ?

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Buddy its a borderlands area that has always been "subjugated" to one power or another since the ancient Greeks had colonies in Crimea.

Scythian empire, Goths, Huns, Slavic invaders, the Vikings, The Mongol Golden Horde, Poles, Ottoman Turks, etc

And of course it was legally part of the Russian Empire (and then the Soviet Union) since 1710....really had been a Cossack puppet State under Russian control since 1648

300-400 years its been in someway under the authority or influence of Moscow.

Its insane that we would fight them over a place like that.....

---

except that it is not currently under the authority or control of Russia today...

---

Mexico and Canada are not officially part of the USA…but if anyone tried to install anti-American governments there or pull them out of the USA lead economic and military orbit there would be hell to pay.
Did we invade Cuba to prevent it from allying with Russia? Or Nicaragua? Or Venezuela? For that matter, how many times have we sent our armies across the border of Mexico (twice) to conquer and subsume it (zero). Apply the same standard to Canada.

If you think Russia or China fighting a proxy war with us over Canada is wrong/stupid…then it's also wrong/stupid to be fighting a war with them about an area they have always had preeminence over
I don't think it would be stupid for them to do so at all. I'd expect them to do it. The invasion scenario you posed is unhelpfully unrealistic. An implosion of Canada would be far more likely....Quebec independence causing all or part of the remnant Canadian state to request merging with the USA. I'd be all for that. And I'd expect China/Russia would spend a goodly sum of money to influence the "NO" vote in the USA and the remnant Canada, because it is NOT in their interest for USA to get even stronger than it already is. So we'd fight it out in the election, and we'd almost certainly win. And if a Canadian insurgency broke out to oppose the merger, you can rest assured China and Russia would fund it (from the first day to the last).

---

Redbrickbear 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.

---

Good points

Always pretty funny/strange that Britain and France went to war with Hitler because he had invaded Poland.

When of course ole mass murdering uncle Joe Stalin had also invaded Poland!

---

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.

---

Anyone like you who is so glib about entering into WW3 on behalf of Ukraine is no 'buddy' of mine.
I'm not glib about anything, just stone cold sober about the foolishness of trying to win a war by denying that we're in one.

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

We lost over 500,000 dead in WW2 and for nothing.
We didn't start it. But we did have to end it. And deferring to isolationist sentiments like yours did much to prevent it from happening.

The dictator Stalin replaced Hitler throughout most of Eastern Europe and Japanese dominance in China / Manchuria was replaced by the Communists.
Are you seriously suggesting that such had no impact on our national interests? that we would have been better off letting Hitler and Tojo have whatever they wanted as long as it didn't involve the US mainland?

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.
I bought a ticket yesterday to travel to Montgomery AL to attend the graduation of my daughter from the USAF Command & General Staff with a JADS (Joint All-Domain Strategist) award. She assumes command of the mobility unit at a NATO airbase in late June.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.]

---

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.


We have been working on establishing more Capitalistic Democracies for over 50 years in that part of the world. Now that they need our help, we say No????

If you remember, in the 90's we helped Russia when asked. This is not a Russia is bad. This is a Putin is bad...

---

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.
different entities, yes. different interests, no. Does not matter whether Tsars or General Secretaries or former intel officers run Russia. Russian interests are pretty much the same. Until you drop this red herring, you will never understand what's going on.

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.
LOL We didn't interfere. RUSSIA DID! We didn't invade or sponsor any insurgencies or anything of the sort. RUSSIA DID! We didn't hornswoggle a tiny minority of Ukrainian leadership to bend to our will. RUSSIA DID! All we did was respond positively to the Ukrainian desire, as expressed by their freely elected Parliament, to join the EU.

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.
again, your lack of understanding of geopolitics and military strategy is simply stunning. Russia has a line of supply between Moscow and Murmansk made defensible only by the presence of two long-time neutral nations along that line. Now, defense of that line is no longer tenable. Russian policy anywhere in the Atlantic or Mediterranean has been effectively checkmated. Their only defensible base at Vladivostok will be of no use against its most serious geopolitical foes (European powers).

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

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honest questiion for all you boomercons and government-americans who have bought into the democrat Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative.

Today you're given the choice between leaving wherever you happen to live and living in:

(A) Downtown Philadelphia
(B) Downtown LA
(C) Downtown San Francisco
(D) Downtown Portland
(E) Downtown Chicago
(F) Harlem
(G) Downtown Moscow

Which do you choose? You cannot pick anywhere not on this list. This will go a long way towards revealing if you know what time it is.

I'm picking G every day and twice on Sunday. You know why that is? I'd prefer to live in a free place where half my salary is not subject to seizure, I'm not subject to racially motivated lawfare from corrupt prosecutors, stealing is still illegal, etc.

But go on pretending that we're in the middle of a cold war and Krushchev is still premier of the USSR.

---

historian said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

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.

---

I never said Israel is "our greatest ally" but I do believe that they are important to us and to the world and that it is in everyone's interest that they defeat & destroy Hamas for multiple reasons.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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 ?

---

So what your saying is had we given Eastern Europe, France, and the British and French colonies along with China and Korea to Germany and Japan respectively, things would have been what? Better? I just want to understand what perspective you're working from before I also pick apart your points. Like if India and/or Pakistan prefer their independence. Or that the ultimate collapse for the first time in history of colonial empires wasn't an incredstride forward.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.]

---

it is you with the own-goal, and multiple ones at that.

1) Those same sources also make it quite clear that Japan thought it could make US resistance futile, by gobbling up the entire Pacific before America could mobilize.
2) More robust peacetime order of battle would have upped Japanese cost calculations and forced them to move more cautiously.
3) More robust foreign policy (what you call "empire") would have made Japanese adversaries stronger, which would have made them spend more time/money consolidating their gains.
4) More robust aid to nations/insurgency actually fighting Japanese forces would have increased the cost of war to Japan, attritting their forces and materiel at faster rates, weakening them before engagement with us.
5) Knowing we had the advantage in a war of attrition, policy should have done a better job of ensuring that Japan could not use rapid maneuver warfare to force us to do the island hopping campaigns.

And on and on. US isolationism emboldened our adversaries, which hastened the war to our doorstep, and drastically increased the cost of it when it finally landed in our lap.

Tyrants ALWAYS look like geniuses, until they inevitably miscalculate and reach something that exceeds their grasp, like the gates of Moscow or sunny beaches of Hawaii. Nothing emboldens them to make the miscalculation quite like appeasement and isolationism, which is exactly what you are advocating here. It tells them that their own limitations don't matter, because their potential adversary doesn't have the will to resist them until it's too late to do anything about it. That theme repeats over and over and over in history, most recently in Ukraine in Februrary 2022. And when a tyrant makes that kind of overreach, you must pounce and make sure they lose digits and limbs. Not doing so only reinforces their assumptions about your lack of will.

You really should read up on foreign policy realism. Meirsheimer is a realist, you know. Despite his blindness on the Ukrainian question, I totally agree with him that realism is the way the world actually does work.

---