One way all of this could have been avoided was to not expand NATO when we said we would not expand NATO.

That would have been smart.

Since we weren't smart. It is to have a strong leader that does as he says. You tell Russia that to sue for peace or Ukraine is about to get our best weapons and intelligence short of nuclear.

You tell Ukraine sue for peace or you'll get our best, one time, and then no more-NOTHING.

You put a deadline on both. You stick to the deadline.

The MIC isn't happy because their best customer is no longer fighting.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Most of which were bought decades ago and the cost to send them to Ukraine is much cheaper than the cost to continue to maintain or scrap them.

---

Not when it is measured in blood.

---

we have shed no blood in Ukraine.

---

Grandpa, how many people did you kill in WWII?

I never killed anyone. I was the machine gunners assistant. I just fed the machine gun while the gunner mowed them down.

Technically correct

---

uh, no.

The US military has neither inflicted nor incurred any casualties at all in Ukraine.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

One way all of this could have been avoided was to not expand NATO when we said we would not expand NATO.

That would have been smart.

Since we weren't smart. It is to have a strong leader that does as he says. You tell Russia that to sue for peace or Ukraine is about to get our best weapons and intelligence short of nuclear.

You tell Ukraine sue for peace or you'll get our best, one time, and then no more-NOTHING.

You put a deadline on both. You stick to the deadline.

The MIC isn't happy because their best customer is no longer fighting.

---

indeed, for Russia. But you can't utter a peep about cutting Ukraine off, or Russia will not just wait us out. You have to do them sequentially. THEN, you open up the spigot for Ukraine and let Russia feel some heat. THEN you offer peace negotiations to Putin. Once those negotiations are underway, you get the best deal you can then force it down Ukraine's throat as you note.

whiterock said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Most of which were bought decades ago and the cost to send them to Ukraine is much cheaper than the cost to continue to maintain or scrap them.

---

Not when it is measured in blood.

---

we have shed no blood in Ukraine.

---

Grandpa, how many people did you kill in WWII?

I never killed anyone. I was the machine gunners assistant. I just fed the machine gun while the gunner mowed them down.

Technically correct

---

uh, no.

The US military has neither inflicted nor incurred any casualties at all in Ukraine.

---

analogies can be hard when you don't want to see them.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Most of which were bought decades ago and the cost to send them to Ukraine is much cheaper than the cost to continue to maintain or scrap them.

---

Not when it is measured in blood.

---

we have shed no blood in Ukraine.

---

Grandpa, how many people did you kill in WWII?

I never killed anyone. I was the machine gunners assistant. I just fed the machine gun while the gunner mowed them down.

Technically correct

---

uh, no.

The US military has neither inflicted nor incurred any casualties at all in Ukraine.

---

analogies can be hard when you don't want to see them.

---

and even harder when the analogy offered actually isn't one at all.......

whiterock said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Most of which were bought decades ago and the cost to send them to Ukraine is much cheaper than the cost to continue to maintain or scrap them.

---

Not when it is measured in blood.

---

we have shed no blood in Ukraine.

---

Grandpa, how many people did you kill in WWII?

I never killed anyone. I was the machine gunners assistant. I just fed the machine gun while the gunner mowed them down.

Technically correct

---

uh, no.

The US military has neither inflicted nor incurred any casualties at all in Ukraine.

---

analogies can be hard when you don't want to see them.

---

and even harder when the analogy offered actually isn't one at all.......

---

I've become accustomed to reading your post so it's okay

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

---

We have had servicemen in Ukraine for almost a year.

By the time you 'say we should not have troops in Ukraine' , events will render such comments meaningless.

Love Trump or hate him….he is the only candidate who will not escalate US involvement in the war.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

---

We have had servicemen in Ukraine for almost a year.

By the time you 'say we should not have troops in Ukraine' , events will render such comments meaningless.

Love Trump or hate him….he is the only candidate who will not escalate US involvement in the war.

---

If you are talking SF advisors, that's their job. They are in 130 countries a year in any giving year. it's what they do, their primary mission.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

---

We have had servicemen in Ukraine for almost a year.

By the time you 'say we should not have troops in Ukraine' , events will render such comments meaningless.

Love Trump or hate him….he is the only candidate who will not escalate US involvement in the war.

---

If you are talking SF advisors, that's their job. They are in 130 countries a year in any giving year. it's what they do, their primary mission.

---

130 countries in a single year.

Link ?

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

---

We have had servicemen in Ukraine for almost a year.

By the time you 'say we should not have troops in Ukraine' , events will render such comments meaningless.

Love Trump or hate him….he is the only candidate who will not escalate US involvement in the war.

---

If you are talking SF advisors, that's their job. They are in 130 countries a year in any giving year. it's what they do, their primary mission.

---

130 countries in a single year.

Link ?

---

I apologize, it is 80. On me, been a while.

Last time I checked was 2016 and it was 138 and the Pentagon would only tell of 129.On any given day 90 nations.

Here is the overall numbers of US troops nationwide and where. It may be 138...

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

---

We have had servicemen in Ukraine for almost a year.

By the time you 'say we should not have troops in Ukraine' , events will render such comments meaningless.

Love Trump or hate him….he is the only candidate who will not escalate US involvement in the war.

---

If you are talking SF advisors, that's their job. They are in 130 countries a year in any giving year. it's what they do, their primary mission.

---

130 countries in a single year.

Link ?

---

I apologize, it is 80. On me, been a while.

---

You were in SF ?

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

---

We have had servicemen in Ukraine for almost a year.

By the time you 'say we should not have troops in Ukraine' , events will render such comments meaningless.

Love Trump or hate him….he is the only candidate who will not escalate US involvement in the war.

---

If you are talking SF advisors, that's their job. They are in 130 countries a year in any giving year. it's what they do, their primary mission.

---

130 countries in a single year.

Link ?

---

I apologize, it is 80. On me, been a while.

---

You were in SF ?

---

I was stationed at 1st SP Warfare Training BN, Ft Bragg way back. They run the Q-Course. I was enlisted on staff.

I wanted to go, and friends of mine did, until I met my wife. I decided against it because everyone I knew there was divorced several times. Met some of the finest people I ever met and they had a huge impact on how I "Charlie Mike" my projects. But, I couldn't give the commitment necessary.

Semi-Regret of mine. Semi because i am still married to 40 years later. So, I have a special interest in this subject. I love the SF mission, but you have to be prepared to spend many years away each deployment is 6 months. So, when they say they are a force multiplier, you have to be there and gain trust. You gain trunst by truly helping them meet their needs. Working with other Nations to be free, that is a noble pursuit (may sound corny, but honest). I was training to go BEAR program Engineer track. Ended up a civilian planning and building roads, parks and infrastructure.

I have the utmost respect for the guys in the 82d and SF. They do a tough job better than anyone in the world.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

---

indeed. the A-H template doesn't fit tidily in the post-Vietnam era. At all.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

---

We have had servicemen in Ukraine for almost a year.

By the time you 'say we should not have troops in Ukraine' , events will render such comments meaningless.

Love Trump or hate him….he is the only candidate who will not escalate US involvement in the war.

---

If you are talking SF advisors, that's their job. They are in 130 countries a year in any giving year. it's what they do, their primary mission.

---

130 countries in a single year.

Link ?

---

I apologize, it is 80. On me, been a while.

Last time I checked was 2016 and it was 138 and the Pentagon would only tell of 129.On any given day 90 nations.

Here is the overall numbers of US troops nationwide and where. It may be 138...

---

their missions are usually classified, so the true number is.........

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Roosevelt

" We will remain neutral "

" We must provide weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to England "

" We will remain neutral ".

Orders the United States Navy to escort supply ships from US ports to the mid Atlantic. At which point the Royal Navy takes over responsibility for protecting the ships.

" We will remain. neutral "

US Navy begins attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.


" We will remain neutral "

Roosevelt gives FIFTY US destroyers to the Royal Navy.
England has no money to pay for the warships, so they give the US leases in British territories for military bases.

Hitler, totally fed up, finally allows his submarine captains to attack all warships escorting supply ships to England. Soon one US destroyer is sunk and another severely damaged. Over 120 US sailors are killed or drowned.

All of this after Roosevelt repeatedly promised the American people in his 1940 te election campaign, he would keep the US out of WW2.

Then his lies began with 'supplies'.

---

Can't change history. I can only speak about now and what I think we should do.

IF the US Policy of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's wasn't geared toward the Cold War. If we didn't court these Nations to come west and take part in the breakup of the Soviet Union (Budapest Memo), I would agree with you.

Because of all that, because the Budapest Memo implies security assurances, I do not see a way that the US stays out and maintains any credibility. Selling/Giving/ Leasing weapons seems the cleanest way to maintain credibility AND stay out.

---

The point remains the same.

A. US civilians don't want war….are lied to by their leadership snd get dragged into wars repeatedly.

B. Usually by 'only providing supplies'.

C. Then : A few 'advisors '

D. Then a gradual escalation of our commitment until we provoke a response.

E. Americans then get killed and our media ( and President ) demand war.

F. Thousands of US servicemen die.


G. Elites get staff jobs far behind the lines while their Dsddies get richer.


H. Win or lose we screw up the peace following the bloodshed .






Repeat

---

As of today, we are not involved outside of supplies. If that changes, I will be the first person saying we should not send troops into Ukraine.

---

We have had servicemen in Ukraine for almost a year.

By the time you 'say we should not have troops in Ukraine' , events will render such comments meaningless.

Love Trump or hate him….he is the only candidate who will not escalate US involvement in the war.

---

If you are talking SF advisors, that's their job. They are in 130 countries a year in any giving year. it's what they do, their primary mission.

---

130 countries in a single year.

Link ?

---

I apologize, it is 80. On me, been a while.

Last time I checked was 2016 and it was 138 and the Pentagon would only tell of 129.On any given day 90 nations.

Here is the overall numbers of US troops nationwide and where. It may be 138...

---

their missions are usually classified, so the true number is.........

---

So true. So rather than get caught up on exact numbers in any given year, let's just say that the we have a significant presence and it does not necessarily reflect combat troops but support/advising.

Although 18 series is eligible for the CIB, most of the time their role is advising in the context we are discussing.

Wow. Biden/Harris escalate the war on their way out. Garbage gonna garbage.

Russia in response to a report that the Biden admin has allowed Ukraine to use long range weapons. If this is true it is clear what would have happened if Harris had won. The key is escalation, and the Establishment is and has been the uni-party of war.

Quote:

---

"If such a decision was indeed formulated and brought to the Kyiv regime, then this is a qualitatively new round of tension and a qualitatively new situation from the point of view of U.S. involvement in this conflict," Peskov said.
...

"It is obvious that the outgoing administration in Washington intends to take steps to continue adding fuel to the fire and continue to provoke tension around this conflict," Peskov said. Reuters reported the Biden administration's decision on Sunday, citing two U.S. officials and a source familiar with the decision. The New York Times also reported the decision.
...

"Biden's administration is trying to escalate the situation to the maximum while they still have power and are still in office," Russian lawmaker Maria Butina said.



Read more: Russia: Missile Move Means 'US Involvement' in War | Newsmax.com

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Wow. Biden/Harris escalate the war on their way out. Garbage gonna garbage.

Russia in response to a report that the Biden admin has allowed Ukraine to use long range weapons. If this is true it is clear what would have happened if Harris had won. The key is escalation, and the Establishment is and has been the uni-party of war.

Quote:

---

"If such a decision was indeed formulated and brought to the Kyiv regime, then this is a qualitatively new round of tension and a qualitatively new situation from the point of view of U.S. involvement in this conflict," Peskov said.
...

"It is obvious that the outgoing administration in Washington intends to take steps to continue adding fuel to the fire and continue to provoke tension around this conflict," Peskov said. Reuters reported the Biden administration's decision on Sunday, citing two U.S. officials and a source familiar with the decision. The New York Times also reported the decision.
...

"Biden's administration is trying to escalate the situation to the maximum while they still have power and are still in office," Russian lawmaker Maria Butina said.



Read more: Russia: Missile Move Means 'US Involvement' in War | Newsmax.com

---

---

And Putin responded by updating his Nuclear Use policy to address the escalation. At this point, it's merely for show I'd wager but it shows you the level of escalation, and it may be used as justification down the road.

I know you all think my WW3 threads are are alarmist hyperbole but sadly things are getting amped up bit by bit. We need someone sane and strong to represent American interests. Hopefully Trump is that guy.