ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

Bingo. Give it all to Israel and let them sort it out. People in the West Bank and especially Gaza would actually have more rights, freedoms, and economic opportunities than they've ever had.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

---

I'm not sure how you inferred that. I'm saying we ended up with a 1 state solution (which I am glad we did). But in the ME they seem to think a 2 state solution is the only possibility.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Many Arabs in Judea or Samaria are genocidal terrorists you want to kill all Jews. So why should any sane person care what they think?

---

Israel proper is in no real danger from the Palestinians.

---

See Oct 7

---

An attack that lasted a few hours and that cost the lives of 1,143 civilians and was put down rather quickly is no existential threat to a 9 million person state with a first world economy and nuclear weapons.

Heck the IDF killed 1,600 Hamas fighters (more then the Israelis they lost) and was taken by surprise in the attack. Something that will not happen again.

They have now bombed Gaza back to the Stone Age, destroyed half the homes, and killed around 30,000 Palestinians.

It's not real contest between who is stronger.

---

Attack on 9/11 only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000 Americans.
Attack on Pearl Harbor only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000.

---

and in both cases we ran our armies thru the countries responsible like shyte thru a goose, for YEARS....

---

And that was not necessary to our advantage.

Trillions spend, thousands of Americans dead and wounded, and basically back to square one

Taliban back in control of Afghanistan and Iran having defacto control in Iraq

Wonderful

---

Japan and Germany were spectacular successes and cost a lot more money than that.

Sometimes, buddy, you gotta go stop a mudhole in someobody's arse just to remind everyone that you can stop mudholes anywhere you want to.

And we are well short of that in Ukraine. We are spending modest amounts of money to help someone else do it to Russia (so we don't have to).

---

Who is "we" ?

I am more American than most of the people on this board. My family founded and built this country. I do not support wasting money on defending Ukraine or even Europe itself and the people who are supporting that are my #1 enemy in this world.

The Europeans look down on us and take advantage of America's generosity. They dont appreciate the money and protection we have given them since the fall of the Soviet Union so time to cut our losses and let them defend themselves.

---

Get yer head out of alimentary canal.

How does a stronger, wealthier Russia with more influence over Europe benefit the USA?

How does the advance of any imperialist powers thru Asia and Europe, explicitly seeking to roll back our interests, benefit us?

At no point do war policy critics ever offer any substantive benefits to their isolationist policies, other than "nothing that happens outside our borders matter."

---

Has there ever been a single war that just didn't turn you on ?

Hundreds of thousands of people are DEAD.
because Russia invaded Ukraine.

When the peace treaty is signed Putin will get much of what he wanted.
he just reiterated yesterday he wants ALL of Ukraine, and he ain't getting it.

This nightmare should have been avoided.
Unfortunately, Russia did/does not agree with you.

---

you can wring your hands all you want and it's not gonna get you anywhere. You're going to have to deal with these facts:

We did not provoke this war.
We did not start this war.
Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.
It is good for us if they do, and bad for us if they don't.

So step up the production lines and send ammo so Ukrainians can continue killing Russians. It's the only language the Russians understand.

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

---

I'm not sure how you inferred that. I'm saying we ended up with a 1 state solution (which I am glad we did). But in the ME they seem to think a 2 state solution is the only possibility.

---

Sorry, you're right

I would guess most issues like that do end in a "1 State Solution"

Germany of course spent 300 years fighting wars of consolidation....Italy as well.

China and Russia have fought wars against their own break up.

Etc.

But in the case of Israel-Palestine...it is what the majority of the worlds countries want (a two State solution)...and its not really clear how Israel can keep millions of Palestinians under military rule forever.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

---

I'm not sure how you inferred that. I'm saying we ended up with a 1 state solution (which I am glad we did). But in the ME they seem to think a 2 state solution is the only possibility.

---

Sorry, you're right

I would guess most issues like that do end in a "1 State Solution"

Germany of course spent 300 years fighting wars of consolidation....Italy as well.

China and Russia have fought wars against their own break up.

Etc.

But in the case of Israel-Palestine...it is what the majority of the worlds countries want (a two State solution)...and its not really clear how Israel can keep millions of Palestinians under military rule forever.

---

I believe Palestinians don't want a 2 state solution

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

---

The Confederates started that war in every step of the way.

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

---

The Confederates started that war in every step of the way.

---

They were MAGA's

Several countries in the region have already made peace with Israel in one form or another. Saudi Arabia was preparing to do something like that until Hamas disrupted everything on October 7.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

---

I'm not sure how you inferred that. I'm saying we ended up with a 1 state solution (which I am glad we did). But in the ME they seem to think a 2 state solution is the only possibility.

---

Sorry, you're right

I would guess most issues like that do end in a "1 State Solution"

Germany of course spent 300 years fighting wars of consolidation....Italy as well.

China and Russia have fought wars against their own break up.

Etc.

But in the case of Israel-Palestine...it is what the majority of the worlds countries want (a two State solution)...and its not really clear how Israel can keep millions of Palestinians under military rule forever.

---

Modern Germany and Italy did not exist before the 1860s-1870s. They were disunited independent states. Garibaldi, Cavour, Napoleon III, & Bismarck were the primary drivers of these events.

The Palestinians only want a one state solution including a Hitlerian Final Solution, another Holocaust. That is why they do not deserve a voice in these matters. Genocidal barbarians should be destroyed, not accommodated in any way.

Not really. Too many differences for a meaningful comparison.

Like what?

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

---

I'm not sure how you inferred that. I'm saying we ended up with a 1 state solution (which I am glad we did). But in the ME they seem to think a 2 state solution is the only possibility.

---

Sorry, you're right

I would guess most issues like that do end in a "1 State Solution"

Germany of course spent 300 years fighting wars of consolidation....Italy as well.

China and Russia have fought wars against their own break up.

Etc.

But in the case of Israel-Palestine...it is what the majority of the worlds countries want (a two State solution)...and its not really clear how Israel can keep millions of Palestinians under military rule forever.

---

Modern Germany and Italy did not exist before the 1860s-1870s. They were disunited independent states. Garibaldi, Cavour, Napoleon III, & Bismarck were the primary drivers of these events.

---

That's why I said "spent 300 years in wars of consolation"….really the dream and desire went back even further…as did the resistance to forceful consolidation.

I of course never said they were unified nation states before the late 1800s

historian said:

---

The Palestinians only want a one state solution including a Hitlerian Final Solution, another Holocaust.

---

That is a useful propagandist line….but almost certainly not accurate

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

---

The Confederates started that war in every step of the way.

---

Naw

But there is an underlying similarity between Lincoln-Garabaldi-Bismarck

All desire unification…all lovers of centralized authority.

(*Of course Bismarck was a practical man and a political genius, Garibaldi was personal brave in war and fearless, while Lincoln was not personally brave in battle or a genius)

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

The Palestinians only want a one state solution including a Hitlerian Final Solution, another Holocaust.

---

That is a useful propagandist line….but almost certainly not accurate

---

It's in their charter and their #1 priority. Also pretty obvious from all their actions & propaganda.

Many things: slavery, obsession with violence, etc.

Actually, most the things the Leftists accuse Trump supporters of are actually their issues. They have an amazing lack of self awareness.

The only genuine similarity I can see between the modern right and antebellum America is respect for the second amendment. Notice I didn't say the confederacy. Pretty much all of the US believed in gun rights back then. The main exception were southern democrats who were terrified of blacks with guns. I guess some things never change: the fascists are afraid if people who can defend themselves. I imagine the history of the KKK would be very different if blacks were well armed. The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, a precursor to the SS or SA.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

The Palestinians only want a one state solution including a Hitlerian Final Solution, another Holocaust.

---

That is a useful propagandist line….but almost certainly not accurate

---

Actually, it's fact.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Likely the end of Palestine as we know it

---

Israel was never going to let them actual have a State anyway.

---

I've always wondered why some are so adamant about a 2 state solution. Years ago in our country we had a civil war but didn't decide on a 2 state solution.

---

You act like that was a good thing...

11 States wanted to form a new country...the central government decided to make war on them to prevent it.

(*more States if you add in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona territory)

---

The Confederates started that war in every step of the way.

---

Naw

But there is an underlying similarity between Lincoln-Garabaldi-Bismarck

All desire unification…all lovers of centralized authority.

(*Of course Bismarck was a practical man and a political genius, Garibaldi was personal brave in war and fearless, while Lincoln was not personally brave in battle or a genius)

---

The similarity is minimal, mainly because they were contemporaries. Lincoln was more of a political genius than you give him credit for.

There's no doubt: Bismarck was the greatest and most important European political figure in the late 19th century.

Curious side note: Lincoln tried to recruit Garibaldi to help in America's fight for freedom. Garibaldi declined.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Many Arabs in Judea or Samaria are genocidal terrorists you want to kill all Jews. So why should any sane person care what they think?

---

Israel proper is in no real danger from the Palestinians.

---

See Oct 7

---

An attack that lasted a few hours and that cost the lives of 1,143 civilians and was put down rather quickly is no existential threat to a 9 million person state with a first world economy and nuclear weapons.

Heck the IDF killed 1,600 Hamas fighters (more then the Israelis they lost) and was taken by surprise in the attack. Something that will not happen again.

They have now bombed Gaza back to the Stone Age, destroyed half the homes, and killed around 30,000 Palestinians.

It's not real contest between who is stronger.

---

Attack on 9/11 only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000 Americans.
Attack on Pearl Harbor only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000.

---

and in both cases we ran our armies thru the countries responsible like shyte thru a goose, for YEARS....

---

And that was not necessary to our advantage.

Trillions spend, thousands of Americans dead and wounded, and basically back to square one

Taliban back in control of Afghanistan and Iran having defacto control in Iraq

Wonderful

---

Japan and Germany were spectacular successes and cost a lot more money than that.

Sometimes, buddy, you gotta go stop a mudhole in someobody's arse just to remind everyone that you can stop mudholes anywhere you want to.

And we are well short of that in Ukraine. We are spending modest amounts of money to help someone else do it to Russia (so we don't have to).

---

Who is "we" ?

I am more American than most of the people on this board. My family founded and built this country. I do not support wasting money on defending Ukraine or even Europe itself and the people who are supporting that are my #1 enemy in this world.

The Europeans look down on us and take advantage of America's generosity. They dont appreciate the money and protection we have given them since the fall of the Soviet Union so time to cut our losses and let them defend themselves.

---

Get yer head out of alimentary canal.

How does a stronger, wealthier Russia with more influence over Europe benefit the USA?

How does the advance of any imperialist powers thru Asia and Europe, explicitly seeking to roll back our interests, benefit us?

At no point do war policy critics ever offer any substantive benefits to their isolationist policies, other than "nothing that happens outside our borders matter."

---

Has there ever been a single war that just didn't turn you on ?

Hundreds of thousands of people are DEAD.

When the peace treaty is signed Putin will get much of what he wanted.

This nightmare should have been avoided.

---

It was inevitable when Russia grabbed Crimea and started the conflict in the Donbas a decade ago. But when peace settles, and Ukraine minus some Eastern parts and Crimea is a NATO member, maybe it will finally be clear to some that this was a war of aggression for Russian financial and resource interests.

---

Some 'eastern parts ' made up primarily of ethnic Russians who were already fighting the Ukrainian central government.

Ukraine will not become a NATO partner …..period.

Therefore hundreds of thousands will have died basically for nothing .

Unclear……exactly what is your reference to Crimea ?

---

Ukraine is on the brink of NATO membership now, so I'd temper your certainty.

This war started with an invasion of Ukraine proper and an attempt to subdue the nation and the nation's capital. It was thwarted. Now for 2 years they've been mostly fighting in and over regions that had been in conflict with Russia for a decade. Crimea is part of that.

If Ukrainian independence is nothing, if resisting an invader is nothing, if fighting for your home is nothing, then sure it's for nothing.

---

So NATO is going to grant Ukraine membership and then be obligated to openly fight Russia on Ukraine's behalf ?

Exactly which population of Western Europeans will agree to fight in such a war ?

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Many Arabs in Judea or Samaria are genocidal terrorists you want to kill all Jews. So why should any sane person care what they think?

---

Israel proper is in no real danger from the Palestinians.

---

See Oct 7

---

An attack that lasted a few hours and that cost the lives of 1,143 civilians and was put down rather quickly is no existential threat to a 9 million person state with a first world economy and nuclear weapons.

Heck the IDF killed 1,600 Hamas fighters (more then the Israelis they lost) and was taken by surprise in the attack. Something that will not happen again.

They have now bombed Gaza back to the Stone Age, destroyed half the homes, and killed around 30,000 Palestinians.

It's not real contest between who is stronger.

---

Attack on 9/11 only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000 Americans.
Attack on Pearl Harbor only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000.

---

and in both cases we ran our armies thru the countries responsible like shyte thru a goose, for YEARS....

---

And that was not necessary to our advantage.

Trillions spend, thousands of Americans dead and wounded, and basically back to square one

Taliban back in control of Afghanistan and Iran having defacto control in Iraq

Wonderful

---

Japan and Germany were spectacular successes and cost a lot more money than that.

Sometimes, buddy, you gotta go stop a mudhole in someobody's arse just to remind everyone that you can stop mudholes anywhere you want to.

And we are well short of that in Ukraine. We are spending modest amounts of money to help someone else do it to Russia (so we don't have to).

---

Who is "we" ?

I am more American than most of the people on this board. My family founded and built this country. I do not support wasting money on defending Ukraine or even Europe itself and the people who are supporting that are my #1 enemy in this world.

The Europeans look down on us and take advantage of America's generosity. They dont appreciate the money and protection we have given them since the fall of the Soviet Union so time to cut our losses and let them defend themselves.

---

Get yer head out of alimentary canal.

How does a stronger, wealthier Russia with more influence over Europe benefit the USA?

How does the advance of any imperialist powers thru Asia and Europe, explicitly seeking to roll back our interests, benefit us?

At no point do war policy critics ever offer any substantive benefits to their isolationist policies, other than "nothing that happens outside our borders matter."

---

Has there ever been a single war that just didn't turn you on ?

Hundreds of thousands of people are DEAD.

When the peace treaty is signed Putin will get much of what he wanted.

This nightmare should have been avoided.

---

It was inevitable when Russia grabbed Crimea and started the conflict in the Donbas a decade ago. But when peace settles, and Ukraine minus some Eastern parts and Crimea is a NATO member, maybe it will finally be clear to some that this was a war of aggression for Russian financial and resource interests.

---

Some 'eastern parts ' made up primarily of ethnic Russians who were already fighting the Ukrainian central government.

Ukraine will not become a NATO partner …..period.

Therefore hundreds of thousands will have died basically for nothing .

Unclear……exactly what is your reference to Crimea ?

---

Ukraine is on the brink of NATO membership now, so I'd temper your certainty.

This war started with an invasion of Ukraine proper and an attempt to subdue the nation and the nation's capital. It was thwarted. Now for 2 years they've been mostly fighting in and over regions that had been in conflict with Russia for a decade. Crimea is part of that.

If Ukrainian independence is nothing, if resisting an invader is nothing, if fighting for your home is nothing, then sure it's for nothing.

---

So NATO is going to grant Ukraine membership than be obligated to openly fight Russia on Ukraine's behalf ?

Exactly which population of Western Europeans will agree to fight in such a war ?

---

It's likely they'll get political entry first (being and has been discussed) which will open up support mechanisms from allies, then once the conflict settles the next piece will happen. It's also a strategic negotiation piece given Russia's pressing for no NATO.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Many Arabs in Judea or Samaria are genocidal terrorists you want to kill all Jews. So why should any sane person care what they think?

---

Israel proper is in no real danger from the Palestinians.

---

See Oct 7

---

An attack that lasted a few hours and that cost the lives of 1,143 civilians and was put down rather quickly is no existential threat to a 9 million person state with a first world economy and nuclear weapons.

Heck the IDF killed 1,600 Hamas fighters (more then the Israelis they lost) and was taken by surprise in the attack. Something that will not happen again.

They have now bombed Gaza back to the Stone Age, destroyed half the homes, and killed around 30,000 Palestinians.

It's not real contest between who is stronger.

---

Attack on 9/11 only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000 Americans.
Attack on Pearl Harbor only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000.

---

and in both cases we ran our armies thru the countries responsible like shyte thru a goose, for YEARS....

---

And that was not necessary to our advantage.

Trillions spend, thousands of Americans dead and wounded, and basically back to square one

Taliban back in control of Afghanistan and Iran having defacto control in Iraq

Wonderful

---

Japan and Germany were spectacular successes and cost a lot more money than that.

Sometimes, buddy, you gotta go stop a mudhole in someobody's arse just to remind everyone that you can stop mudholes anywhere you want to.

And we are well short of that in Ukraine. We are spending modest amounts of money to help someone else do it to Russia (so we don't have to).

---

Who is "we" ?

I am more American than most of the people on this board. My family founded and built this country. I do not support wasting money on defending Ukraine or even Europe itself and the people who are supporting that are my #1 enemy in this world.

The Europeans look down on us and take advantage of America's generosity. They dont appreciate the money and protection we have given them since the fall of the Soviet Union so time to cut our losses and let them defend themselves.

---

Get yer head out of alimentary canal.

How does a stronger, wealthier Russia with more influence over Europe benefit the USA?

How does the advance of any imperialist powers thru Asia and Europe, explicitly seeking to roll back our interests, benefit us?

At no point do war policy critics ever offer any substantive benefits to their isolationist policies, other than "nothing that happens outside our borders matter."

---

Has there ever been a single war that just didn't turn you on ?

Hundreds of thousands of people are DEAD.

When the peace treaty is signed Putin will get much of what he wanted.

This nightmare should have been avoided.

---

It was inevitable when Russia grabbed Crimea and started the conflict in the Donbas a decade ago. But when peace settles, and Ukraine minus some Eastern parts and Crimea is a NATO member, maybe it will finally be clear to some that this was a war of aggression for Russian financial and resource interests.

---

Some 'eastern parts ' made up primarily of ethnic Russians who were already fighting the Ukrainian central government.

Ukraine will not become a NATO partner …..period.

Therefore hundreds of thousands will have died basically for nothing .

Unclear……exactly what is your reference to Crimea ?

---

Ukraine is on the brink of NATO membership now, so I'd temper your certainty.

This war started with an invasion of Ukraine proper and an attempt to subdue the nation and the nation's capital. It was thwarted. Now for 2 years they've been mostly fighting in and over regions that had been in conflict with Russia for a decade. Crimea is part of that.

If Ukrainian independence is nothing, if resisting an invader is nothing, if fighting for your home is nothing, then sure it's for nothing.

---

So NATO is going to grant Ukraine membership than be obligated to openly fight Russia on Ukraine's behalf ?

Exactly which population of Western Europeans will agree to fight in such a war ?

---

It's likely they'll get political entry first (being and has been discussed) which will open up support mechanisms from allies, then once the conflict settles the next piece will happen. It's also a strategic negotiation piece given Russia's pressing for no NATO.

---

Honestly don't believe even such a half assed 'alliance' will occur.

The people in Western Europe don't want still another world war.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Many Arabs in Judea or Samaria are genocidal terrorists you want to kill all Jews. So why should any sane person care what they think?

---

Israel proper is in no real danger from the Palestinians.

---

See Oct 7

---

An attack that lasted a few hours and that cost the lives of 1,143 civilians and was put down rather quickly is no existential threat to a 9 million person state with a first world economy and nuclear weapons.

Heck the IDF killed 1,600 Hamas fighters (more then the Israelis they lost) and was taken by surprise in the attack. Something that will not happen again.

They have now bombed Gaza back to the Stone Age, destroyed half the homes, and killed around 30,000 Palestinians.

It's not real contest between who is stronger.

---

Attack on 9/11 only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000 Americans.
Attack on Pearl Harbor only lasted a few hours and only killed 3,000.

---

and in both cases we ran our armies thru the countries responsible like shyte thru a goose, for YEARS....

---

And that was not necessary to our advantage.

Trillions spend, thousands of Americans dead and wounded, and basically back to square one

Taliban back in control of Afghanistan and Iran having defacto control in Iraq

Wonderful

---

Japan and Germany were spectacular successes and cost a lot more money than that.

Sometimes, buddy, you gotta go stop a mudhole in someobody's arse just to remind everyone that you can stop mudholes anywhere you want to.

And we are well short of that in Ukraine. We are spending modest amounts of money to help someone else do it to Russia (so we don't have to).

---

Who is "we" ?

I am more American than most of the people on this board. My family founded and built this country. I do not support wasting money on defending Ukraine or even Europe itself and the people who are supporting that are my #1 enemy in this world.

The Europeans look down on us and take advantage of America's generosity. They dont appreciate the money and protection we have given them since the fall of the Soviet Union so time to cut our losses and let them defend themselves.

---

Get yer head out of alimentary canal.

How does a stronger, wealthier Russia with more influence over Europe benefit the USA?

How does the advance of any imperialist powers thru Asia and Europe, explicitly seeking to roll back our interests, benefit us?

At no point do war policy critics ever offer any substantive benefits to their isolationist policies, other than "nothing that happens outside our borders matter."

---

Has there ever been a single war that just didn't turn you on ?

Hundreds of thousands of people are DEAD.

When the peace treaty is signed Putin will get much of what he wanted.

This nightmare should have been avoided.

---

It was inevitable when Russia grabbed Crimea and started the conflict in the Donbas a decade ago. But when peace settles, and Ukraine minus some Eastern parts and Crimea is a NATO member, maybe it will finally be clear to some that this was a war of aggression for Russian financial and resource interests.

---

Some 'eastern parts ' made up primarily of ethnic Russians who were already fighting the Ukrainian central government.

Ukraine will not become a NATO partner …..period.

Therefore hundreds of thousands will have died basically for nothing .

Unclear……exactly what is your reference to Crimea ?

---

Ukraine is on the brink of NATO membership now, so I'd temper your certainty.

This war started with an invasion of Ukraine proper and an attempt to subdue the nation and the nation's capital. It was thwarted. Now for 2 years they've been mostly fighting in and over regions that had been in conflict with Russia for a decade. Crimea is part of that.

If Ukrainian independence is nothing, if resisting an invader is nothing, if fighting for your home is nothing, then sure it's for nothing.

---

So NATO is going to grant Ukraine membership than be obligated to openly fight Russia on Ukraine's behalf ?

Exactly which population of Western Europeans will agree to fight in such a war ?

---

It's likely they'll get political entry first (being and has been discussed) which will open up support mechanisms from allies, then once the conflict settles the next piece will happen. It's also a strategic negotiation piece given Russia's pressing for no NATO.

---

Honestly don't believe even such a half assed 'alliance' will occur.

The people in Western Europe don't want still another world war.

---

That's why they're helping Ukraine fight Russia, to win the war east of the Dnieper rather than in the heart of Europe.

whiterock said:

---

You're going to have to deal with these facts:

We did not provoke this war.

---

It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.

Quote:

---

Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.

---

Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.

As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You're going to have to deal with these facts:

We did not provoke this war.

---

It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.
LOL. The problem with listening to your own propaganda is that you might start to believe it. And you definitely have. In fairness, you are not alone in that.

Quote:

---

Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.

---

Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.
Russia is not going to nuke Nato over Ukraine, no matter how badly you want them to do so.

As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.

---

When did you fall in love with Russia?
Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?
Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?

Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?

---

I agree with you. The problem is that Russia does what it wants. It will not follow a DMZ.

What these people that say we should not help Ukraine don't seem to get is that once Ukraine is abandoned because it is not worth fighting over a Nation that means nothing to the US.

The next step is the Baltics, Kalingrad. Will NATO REALLY go Article 5 over Kalingrad? Will NATO allow their kids to fight for the Baltics? The same crowd will say No. Who cares about Kalingrad, the Baltics is not UK, France or Germany, so are we really going to war over Latvia?

Are we really willing to fight over Slovakia or Poland?

Hell, we will take it all the way to US Territories. Are we really going to fight over Guam or Wake Island? We were Imperialistic to have them anyway. It isn't the "real" US. We can go all the way to MA, we willing to fight over Boston? As a Yankee fan, I say No...

whiterock said:

---

When did you fall in love with Russia?

---

I'm what you call an honest broker. When we're doing the right thing, I call it. When they are doing the right thing, I call it.

Quote:

---

Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?

---

When you say NATO, you really mean the United States, and to a lesser extent Turkey. The rest of the NATO countries couldn't win a straight up one on one fight with pre invasion Iraq. The Bundeswehr doesn't even have enough H&Ks for its infantry. Describing one of the largest countries on the planet with the largest nuclear aresenal as you have is silly. Actually it's worse than silly - it's dangerous.

Quote:

---

Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?

---

In a post Hiroshima/Nagasaki world, everyone needs to tiptoe around everyone else.

Quote:

---

Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?

---

Here's a better idea: we agree not to crash parties in Russia's backyard, they agree not to do it in ours. Then we get back to negotiating some arms control treaties.

Your points of view are hopelessly out of date. Were you aware that the Army gave soldiers a briefing at the installation formerly known as Fort Bragg telling them that American pro-lifers were terrorists and that having a Pro-Life custom license plate could identify a terrorist? Of course not. You think it's still 1985.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

When did you fall in love with Russia?

---

I'm what you call an honest broker. When we're doing the right thing, I call it. When they are doing the right thing, I call it.

Quote:

---

Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?

---

When you say NATO, you really mean the United States, and to a lesser extent Turkey. The rest of the NATO countries couldn't win a straight up one on one fight with pre invasion Iraq. The Bundeswehr doesn't even have enough H&Ks for its infantry. Describing one of the largest countries on the planet with the largest nuclear aresenal as you have is silly. Actually it's worse than silly - it's dangerous.

Quote:

---

Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?

---

In a post Hiroshima/Nagasaki world, everyone needs to tiptoe around everyone else.

Quote:

---

Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?

---

Here's a better idea: we agree not to crash parties in Russia's backyard, they agree not to do it in ours. Then we get back to negotiating some arms control treaties.

Your points of view are hopelessly out of date. Were you aware that the Army gave soldiers a briefing at the installation formerly known as Fort Bragg telling them that American pro-lifers were terrorists and that having a Pro-Life custom license plate could identify a terrorist? Of course not. You think it's still 1985.

---

You do know that slide was not vetted and will no longer be used. There are several articles on it. That is not the position of Army leadership. There are whack jobs all over, you can't base policy on a whacky slide that was not approved...

---

Reality bites for Realitybites.

Demilitarizing the Black Sea is an interesting idea but it will never happen: Russia will never agree to it. And they would be foolish to consider it. A cursory glance at geography makes that obvious.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You're going to have to deal with these facts:

We did not provoke this war.

---

It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.
LOL. The problem with listening to your own propaganda is that you might start to believe it. And you definitely have. In fairness, you are not alone in that.

Quote:

---

Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.

---

Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.
Russia is not going to nuke Nato over Ukraine, no matter how badly you want them to do so.

As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.

---

When did you fall in love with Russia?
Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?
Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?

Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?

---

I agree with you. The problem is that Russia does what it wants. It will not follow a DMZ.

What these people that say we should not help Ukraine don't seem to get is that once Ukraine is abandoned because it is not worth fighting over a Nation that means nothing to the US.

The next step is the Baltics, Kalingrad. Will NATO REALLY go Article 5 over Kalingrad? Will NATO allow their kids to fight for the Baltics? The same crowd will say No. Who cares about Kalingrad, the Baltics is not UK, France or Germany, so are we really going to war over Latvia?

Are we really willing to fight over Slovakia or Poland?

Hell, we will take it all the way to US Territories. Are we really going to fight over Guam or Wake Island? We were Imperialistic to have them anyway. It isn't the "real" US. We can go all the way to MA, we willing to fight over Boston? As a Yankee fan, I say No...

---

You do realize that those arguments are similar to what people said in 1938 about the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia? I'm not saying Putin is another Hitler. Actually, he might be worse because he's more sane. And we currently have a leader who is brain dead.

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You're going to have to deal with these facts:

We did not provoke this war.

---

It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.
LOL. The problem with listening to your own propaganda is that you might start to believe it. And you definitely have. In fairness, you are not alone in that.

Quote:

---

Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.

---

Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.
Russia is not going to nuke Nato over Ukraine, no matter how badly you want them to do so.

As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.

---

When did you fall in love with Russia?
Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?
Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?

Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?

---

I agree with you. The problem is that Russia does what it wants. It will not follow a DMZ.

What these people that say we should not help Ukraine don't seem to get is that once Ukraine is abandoned because it is not worth fighting over a Nation that means nothing to the US.

The next step is the Baltics, Kalingrad. Will NATO REALLY go Article 5 over Kalingrad? Will NATO allow their kids to fight for the Baltics? The same crowd will say No. Who cares about Kalingrad, the Baltics is not UK, France or Germany, so are we really going to war over Latvia?

Are we really willing to fight over Slovakia or Poland?

Hell, we will take it all the way to US Territories. Are we really going to fight over Guam or Wake Island? We were Imperialistic to have them anyway. It isn't the "real" US. We can go all the way to MA, we willing to fight over Boston? As a Yankee fan, I say No...

---

You do realize that those arguments are similar to what people said in 1938 about the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia? I'm not saying Putin is another Hitler. Actually, he might be worse because he's more sane. And we currently have a leader who is brain dead.

---

Exactly. Placating and appeasement does not work with someone like Putin or Xi. They view it as weakness.

It doesn't help that our leadership is weak, obviously and egregiously so. Our disgusting leaders are more interested in their woke agenda: pushing racist & trans lies, using drag queens to recruit, etc. And then they wonder why enlistment numbers are down! They are perverted morons.

That argument might be credible if this incident were a one off. Unfortunately, our military in general seems obsessed with the trans & perv agenda. The Air Force & Navy has numerous examples in recent years and no doubt the other branches as well. Also, the regime has a history of mislabeling Americans as terrorists for exercising their first amendment rights. This is not new: the Obama administration did the same thing while avoiding using label for actual terrorists.

The incompetence & perversion of these people is extreme & evil.