muddybrazos said:
sombear said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
BaylorGuy314 said:
whiterock said:
KaiBear said:
Sam Lowry said:
KaiBear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,
[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:
Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.
Not true. We have industrial capacity to spare.
We are currently operating on peacetime replenishment rates.....industrial capacity to maintain existing stocks, to replace outdated stocks, and develop new systems. We can, with he flick of a pen, expand production by orders of magnitude. Defense industries are not going to tool up for more capacity unless they get confirmed long-term contracts in hand. If Biden will just sign the purchase orders, the flow can double, triple, etc......
Russia, on the other hand, has almost fully mobilized its industry. Whatever you think Russian capacity is, multiply it times 20x and that's what Nato can do.
Dude. Russia has a smaller economy than TEXAS.