ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

Come on Sam. Russia invaded a country and gets indignant that the country they invaded fires missiles at them? What did they expect? A warm meal and beverage?

US invades first, those being invaded had the right to fight back. Simple cure is don't invade. Keep you 200k troops on your side of the border and there are no missiles and drones flying at Russia.

---

By your logic the Russians and Chinese had the right to attack the United States when we illegally invaded Iraq.

---

They supplied weaponry to our enemies in that conflict. Most came via Syria.

---

Not for attacks on US soil. That's the distinction.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

Ukraine's sovereign interest was in neutrality. They had no desire to join NATO until we packed their government with Western stooges and set off a civil war in the Donbas.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

Come on Sam. Russia invaded a country and gets indignant that the country they invaded fires missiles at them? What did they expect? A warm meal and beverage?

US invades first, those being invaded had the right to fight back. Simple cure is don't invade. Keep you 200k troops on your side of the border and there are no missiles and drones flying at Russia.

---

By your logic the Russians and Chinese had the right to attack the United States when we illegally invaded Iraq.

---

Huh? What logic do you see there? You really see that? No, Iraq was able to defend themselves and they did. They fired SCUDS at us and Saudis. Killing and destroying alot. Russia was able to supply equipment and they did, we faced T-72 tanks and BMP=2 Fighting Vehicles and all sorts of Russian equipment including missile technology. So, yes. I never held it against Iraq defending themselves, their leadership were whack-jobs but if you are attacked you can defend.

So, explain to me how it is "logical" that the US Coalition attacks Iraq after invading Kuwait and it is good for Russia to attack mainland USA?

Even the 2003 war, US Coalition attacks Iraq. Iraq defends using Russian tech, just like Ukraine, and it is good for China to attack US? That is logical to you?

Finally, what has the US attacked in Ukraine? What act of aggression has the US committed? Name one attack the US has taken part in against Russia? There are none, the US is supplying material just like Russia and China do around the world for decades.

IF the US invaded Mexico, Mexico has every right to defend. Just like they did in the Mexican-American War. Reading a great book on that now. New respect for Lee pre-treason.

---

We're talking about attacks on Russian soil. It's your logic, think it through.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

No, you or I don't know that. You are incredibly stuck in the past, and your points are becoming nonsensical. What, Pancho Villa over 100 years ago is somehow relevant to geopolitical relations today? We can't even interfere enough in Mexican politics to secure our own border from drugs and human trafficking which is a much greater existential threat to our country than them warming up to Russia.

Russia literally has countries on its borders that belong to NATO. NATO doesn't need Ukraine to invade Russia if that's what it intended. Ukraine has an unreliable and corrupt economic and military neighbor/quasi-partner they've been trying to separate from for a long time. Russia won't let them. Ask yourself the Ukrainian question of why shouldn't they be allowed to align with the EU? If they are under the constant threat of invasion from a neighbor, why wouldn't they seek a defense alliance?

Russia gambled on an invasion to stop something that their campaign only made more important for Ukraine than not. And made it more important to NATO when they likely would have dragged it out until some point of acceptance or other approach would have proven satisfactory.

---

Russia never opposed Ukraine aligning with the EU, only with NATO.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

---

We tried to kill their leader (dictator) for decades after.

And we have kept up a strong embargo against the Cuban State for 70 years.


I would not call that "nothing" ....and it was certainly justified

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

---

We tried to kill their leader (dictator) for decades after.

And we have kept up a strong embargo against the Cuban State for 70 years.

---

Honestly I had forgotten about the embargo.

Thanks for the reminder.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

No, you or I don't know that. You are incredibly stuck in the past, and your points are becoming nonsensical. What, Pancho Villa over 100 years ago is somehow relevant to geopolitical relations today?

---

Of course it is....if you are actually trying to have a serious geopolitical discussion

Mexico is right on our border....what happens there, who rules, what government is in power, ect....is of VITAL importance to the United States.

We are never going to "get out of Mexico".....Be it 1840, or 1910, or 2024

(And Russia views Ukraine in same manner...be in 1680, 1920, or 2024)

Sorry to hurt your head by talking about history but it is certainly important to the present and to the future of geopolitics

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO.

---

Nope...

Like always you have to develop a straw man argument.

The Soviets had NO right to put missiles in Cuba and interfere in our part of the world. By doing so they knew DC would push back....with invasions, blockades, assassinations, or something else.

(and if you do the same to Russia in their sphere of influence you can expect the same)

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

My God, climb out of your hole. We are not being attacked, you are safe from Putin. the US had not taken ANY direct action against Russia. Putin is not nuking NATO. US has done nothing but sell munitions to Ukraine. That is not bringing on a nuclear war. This is not 1963 Cuban Missile crisis. That was US vs USSR. US is not in the Ukraine equation. Calm down.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

I'm not seeing the parallels as you do, but Kennedy certainly blundered. If that's the parallel, then yes they both failed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

Come on Sam. Russia invaded a country and gets indignant that the country they invaded fires missiles at them? What did they expect? A warm meal and beverage?

US invades first, those being invaded had the right to fight back. Simple cure is don't invade. Keep you 200k troops on your side of the border and there are no missiles and drones flying at Russia.

---

By your logic the Russians and Chinese had the right to attack the United States when we illegally invaded Iraq.

---

They supplied weaponry to our enemies in that conflict. Most came via Syria.

---

Not for attacks on US soil. That's the distinction.

---

They wound have had to attack us independently and directly to do that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

Ukraine's sovereign interest was in neutrality. They had no desire to join NATO until we packed their government with Western stooges and set off a civil war in the Donbas.

---

They (Russia) had big problems with EU membership. That's what kicked this whole mess off in 2003. Not to mention Euro Maiden was about the EU, not NATO.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

---

We tried to kill their leader (dictator) for decades after.

And we have kept up a strong embargo against the Cuban State for 70 years.


I would not call that "nothing" ....and it was certainly justified

---

I said we did nothing to them after the Soviet Union fell. We didn't try to assassinate Castro, didn't invade or any other hostile action when they no longer had the support of the USSR. We kept the sanctions against a tyrant regime which had been in place since the 60's.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

My God, climb out of your hole. We are not being attacked, you are safe from Putin. the US had not taken ANY direct action against Russia. Putin is not nuking NATO. US has done nothing but sell munitions to Ukraine. That is not bringing on a nuclear war. This is not 1963 Cuban Missile crisis. That was US vs USSR. US is not in the Ukraine equation. Calm down.

---

I am extremely calm.

You simply can't comprehend the risks involved in the actions of a commander in chief who has accelerated dementia.
Soon to be replaced by the stupidest VP in over a century.

Putin is going to retaliate eventually. Just like Kennedy did and for similar reasons.

However our media is not properly informing our citizens, so like you, they will be 'shocked' and 'outraged' if Putin goes for the grand gesture.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

---

We tried to kill their leader (dictator) for decades after.

And we have kept up a strong embargo against the Cuban State for 70 years.


I would not call that "nothing" ....and it was certainly justified

---

I said we did nothing to them after the Soviet Union fell. We didn't try to assassinate Castro, didn't invade or any other hostile action when they no longer had the support of the USSR. We kept the sanctions against a tyrant regime which had been in place since the 60's.

---

With respect, the United States continued its policy treating Cuba as a pariah among nations after the Soviet Union collapsed. That we didn't continue assassination attempts is little to hang your hat on.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

No, you or I don't know that. You are incredibly stuck in the past, and your points are becoming nonsensical. What, Pancho Villa over 100 years ago is somehow relevant to geopolitical relations today?

---

Of course it is....if you are actually trying to have a serious geopolitical discussion

Mexico is right on our border....what happens there, who rules, what government is in power, ect....is of VITAL importance to the United States.

We are never going to "get out of Mexico".....Be it 1840, or 1910, or 2024

(And Russia views Ukraine in same manner...be in 1680, 1920, or 2024)

Sorry to hurt your head by talking about history but it is certainly important to the present and to the future of geopolitics

---

Explain to me how we are in Mexico? Are we any more "in Mexico" than we are "in South Korea"?

---

I mean we are in South Korea

I agree with that.

We have around 40,000 soldiers in South Korea

And if China tied to overthrow the current government in Seoul and replaced it with an anti-American one you can sure we would react.

And rightly so.

We fought a long hard expensive war for South Korea.

It's in our sphere of influence and we are not going to give it up without a fight

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

Come on Sam. Russia invaded a country and gets indignant that the country they invaded fires missiles at them? What did they expect? A warm meal and beverage?

US invades first, those being invaded had the right to fight back. Simple cure is don't invade. Keep you 200k troops on your side of the border and there are no missiles and drones flying at Russia.

---

By your logic the Russians and Chinese had the right to attack the United States when we illegally invaded Iraq.

---

They supplied weaponry to our enemies in that conflict. Most came via Syria.

---

Not for attacks on US soil. That's the distinction.

---

They wound have had to attack us independently and directly to do that.

---

Thank you. The US has not interacted with any Russian forces. NATO has not interacted with any Russian forces. Russia is a bully. Russia will not pick a fight with a peer, they prefer the Ukraine's, Czech's, and Romania's of the world.

The only interaction with Russia is when Russia flies its bombers over Alaska, than the get greeted.

As for Mexico, HOW IS THE US IN MEXICO like Russia in Ukraine. Please explain to me how in real terms, not some geo-political babble that we impose our will. Russia TOOK Crimea. Russia invaded Dombas. What has the US taken from Mexico and invaded since pre-Civil War days? Are we really going back to Pancho VIlla pursuit? Even Cuba, Kennedy didn't invade. He backed out and left those poor SOBs. But he did not invade.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

My God, climb out of your hole. We are not being attacked, you are safe from Putin. the US had not taken ANY direct action against Russia. Putin is not nuking NATO. US has done nothing but sell munitions to Ukraine. That is not bringing on a nuclear war. This is not 1963 Cuban Missile crisis. That was US vs USSR. US is not in the Ukraine equation. Calm down.

---

"Sell"?

The US government, really US taxpayers, are buying weapons and sending a bunch of them over.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

My God, climb out of your hole. We are not being attacked, you are safe from Putin. the US had not taken ANY direct action against Russia. Putin is not nuking NATO. US has done nothing but sell munitions to Ukraine. That is not bringing on a nuclear war. This is not 1963 Cuban Missile crisis. That was US vs USSR. US is not in the Ukraine equation. Calm down.

---

"Sell"?

The US government, really US taxpayers, are buying weapons and sending a bunch of them over.

---

I am not sure what we will get in return, but there is always something. Probably base-rights. trade and Regional support for pro-US policies. Nothing is free.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

My God, climb out of your hole. We are not being attacked, you are safe from Putin. the US had not taken ANY direct action against Russia. Putin is not nuking NATO. US has done nothing but sell munitions to Ukraine. That is not bringing on a nuclear war. This is not 1963 Cuban Missile crisis. That was US vs USSR. US is not in the Ukraine equation. Calm down.

---

"Sell"?

The US government, really US taxpayers, are buying weapons and sending a bunch of them over.

---

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.

trey3216 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

My God, climb out of your hole. We are not being attacked, you are safe from Putin. the US had not taken ANY direct action against Russia. Putin is not nuking NATO. US has done nothing but sell munitions to Ukraine. That is not bringing on a nuclear war. This is not 1963 Cuban Missile crisis. That was US vs USSR. US is not in the Ukraine equation. Calm down.

---

"Sell"?

The US government, really US taxpayers, are buying weapons and sending a bunch of them over.

---

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.

---

Ah OK, we're getting rid of them to save money. Got it.

Meanwhile, Taxpayers $120ish billion to the Ukraine, likely more.

trey3216 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

My God, climb out of your hole. We are not being attacked, you are safe from Putin. the US had not taken ANY direct action against Russia. Putin is not nuking NATO. US has done nothing but sell munitions to Ukraine. That is not bringing on a nuclear war. This is not 1963 Cuban Missile crisis. That was US vs USSR. US is not in the Ukraine equation. Calm down.

---

"Sell"?

The US government, really US taxpayers, are buying weapons and sending a bunch of them over.

---

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.

---

We are paying for more over there than just weapons.

[The United States, through USAID, has directed $22.9 billion in direct budget support to the Government of Ukraine to fund emergency services for internally displaced people and pay public employees delivering critical services]

We are handing out bags of cash to keep the lights on the employees of the State and local government paid.

That is not "increasingly our military capabilities at home" or "resupplying our out dated stockpiles"

Its just giving money to an incredibly corrupt country in Eastern Europe

Do we know if most of it is even going to average Ukrainian citizens?

My gut tells me Ukraine has the "Africa problem" where most of our aid just ends up in the private pockets of a few well connected men.

Oh and of course Congress blocked the appointment of a special Ukraine inspector to keep track of where the tax payer river of cash is going......

[url=https://theintercept.com/2023/08/02/ukraine-aid-special-inspector-afghanistan/][/url]
[Senate Democrats Blocked Watchdog for Ukraine Aid:
[url=https://theintercept.com/2023/08/02/ukraine-aid-special-inspector-afghanistan/][/url]

Aug 2, 2023 The U.S. special inspector who monitored billions of dollars in U.S. waste in Afghanistan cautions about repeating the same mistakes in Ukraine.....Democrats blocked an effort to install greater oversight over the billions of dollars the United States is sending to Ukraine, the watchdog who oversaw U.S. spending in Afghanistan issued a warning...]

https://theintercept.com/2023/08/02/ukraine-aid-special-inspector-afghanistan/

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

My God, climb out of your hole. We are not being attacked, you are safe from Putin. the US had not taken ANY direct action against Russia. Putin is not nuking NATO. US has done nothing but sell munitions to Ukraine. That is not bringing on a nuclear war. This is not 1963 Cuban Missile crisis. That was US vs USSR. US is not in the Ukraine equation. Calm down.

---

"Sell"?

The US government, really US taxpayers, are buying weapons and sending a bunch of them over.

---

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.

---

Ah OK, we're getting rid of them to save money. Got it.

Meanwhile, Taxpayers $120ish billion to the Ukraine, likely more.

---

Most of it is being used to replace equipment we are supplying to Ukraine and modernizing our forces. All the while, weakening Russia. While moving Ukraine further west. That is a good spend of funds.

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

But that is entirely untrue.

---

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true, then there would be no need to make statements that would broaden this into a Russia/NATO war, and the Russian military could simply take it out of the hide of the Ukrainians. Outside of Clown World, there's no incentive for the Russians to hit London or Paris in exchange for strikes on their territory when simply flattening Kiev or Lviv would suffice.

---

Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and N Korea. That is part of having allies. We are not happy with China over their support of Russia, but the US is NOT going to war with China over it.

Do not even think Nukes. No one is going Nukes, except for energy.

---

Russia isn't using Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean aid to attack American soil.

Failing to consider the nuclear risk in this situation would be the height of foolishness.

---

America didn't invade...

You are pro-Russia and China no issue. But at least admit your bias. I am a pro-US, so I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt. You seem to give Russia and Putin the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

---

So you're okay with Russia and its allies firing missiles at America as long as they don't invade? That's a weird way of being pro-US.

Let's just be honest about how we'd see things if we were in their shoes. That isn't pro-Russian, unless you think there's some rule against Americans facing facts.

---

If we'd invaded Mexico and Mexico was using Russian supplied weaponry to fight us, I wouldn't view it as Russia invading or fighting us. You're the one who fails to contemplate the distinction.

---

That is very debatable

More likely you would be on here telling us that Russian actions were beyond the pale and a direct threat to America by funding the Mexican nationalists

And then using it as another excuse for a regime change war against Moscow.

---

And you'd be arguing about DC Elites and praising Mexico.

---

No,

Unlike you I recognize the existence of spheres of influence.

Mexico belongs to DC…or more accurately "within the economic and military alliance network of the United States of America"

Russia has no right to mess around in Mexico or funnel weapons to it in the event of a conflict with America.

You for some strange reason think Ukraine also belongs to DC

Where does the American empire end to you? Does it have any natural limits?

---

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine, just like Mexico belongs to Mexico. And if Russia wants to "mess around" in Mexico, they are free to do so. But the thing you don't understand is that Mexico chooses to align with the U.S. not because other countries don't attempt to "mess around" with them, but because they benefit from it more than aligning with a country like Russia. The same is true with Ukraine. What you call empire is sovereign interest that you want to suppress under some misguided concepts of geography and historicity. If we followed your line of thinking we'd still be in a colonial world.

---

We have invaded Mexico on multiple occasions

And we have interfered in their internal politics on multiple occasions

Because at the end of the day what goes on in Mexico is a vital security interest of the United States

You know that…and you know that Mexico would never be allowed to join a hostile military alliance like the Warsaw pact

(Now think about how Russia feels about Ukraine)

---

Castro asked for aid from the Soviet Union after the failed invasion of Cuba by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs.

Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

US spy planes spot the missiles.

Kennedy, the JCS and the American public go ape ***** Finally Kennedy retaliates with a naval blockage around Cuba.

Yet we feel entitled to supply missiles and other munitions to Ukraine; with which to kill Russians.

However we believe Putin has no right to retaliate in any capacity against our actions.

Only we 'good guys' are entitled to establish naval blockades right ?

---

You guys are serious? It is only fair that the Soviets get to put missiles in Cuba because we supported NATO. Let's all just get along... Putin really isn't a bad guy, he is misunderstood let him have Ukraine he said he will make it better.

Wow, this Nation is in serious trouble when people believe that we need to treat adversaries by the mantra - How would we feel if they did that to us? That is a hell of a foreign policy.

---

Entertaining to play internet Rambo sometimes.

For some it's easier than reading past and current events .

Last attempt.

A. Cuba had long been under the US sphere of influence.
B. Ukraine has long been under the Russian sphere of influence.
C. Kennedy approved a CIA invasion of Cuba in an attempt to depose Castro.
D. Putin approved a Russian invasion of Ukraine to depose Z and prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO.
E. Castro asked for military support from the Soviet Union.
F. Z asked for military support from the US.
G. When nuclear missiles were discovered in Cuba , Kennedy retaliated with a naval blockade of Cuba. However the JCS recommended air strikes and another invasion of Cuba.
I. Putin has not yet retaliated against the US missiles and other munitions killing Russians.


But sooner or later Putin will retaliate……and Americans will be ' shocked '.

---

Cuba continued to get military support from the Soviet Union after the missile crisis. The U.S. did nothing to Cuba even after the Soviet Union was gone.

Putin blundered by invading Ukraine with a military not up to the task of defeating it in short order. He would commit a catastrophic blunder to militarily escalate it to other EU nations.

---

Kennedy made a huge blunder invading Cuba ….and failing.
Made the blunder worse by then repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro ….and failing.


The comparisons between Kennedy's actions involving Cuba and Putin's actions in Ukraine are too obvious to ignore unless one merely wants to play ' John Wayne'.

And even that is ok on an internet message board .

But not ok for our commander in chief and national media .

---

My God, climb out of your hole. We are not being attacked, you are safe from Putin. the US had not taken ANY direct action against Russia. Putin is not nuking NATO. US has done nothing but sell munitions to Ukraine. That is not bringing on a nuclear war. This is not 1963 Cuban Missile crisis. That was US vs USSR. US is not in the Ukraine equation. Calm down.

---

"Sell"?

The US government, really US taxpayers, are buying weapons and sending a bunch of them over.

---

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.

---

Ah OK, we're getting rid of them to save money. Got it.

Meanwhile, Taxpayers $120ish billion to the Ukraine, likely more.

---

Most of it is being used to replace equipment we are supplying to Ukraine and modernizing our forces.



All the while, weakening Russia. While moving Ukraine further west. That is a good spend of funds.

---

1. Something that could be done without a proxy war

2. If it turns into a nuclear holocaust it will have not have been such a good spend of funds

Not to mention there is no proof yet that Ukraine will "move russia further west" without the direct intervention of American ground forces.

All this talk about war with Mexico is stupid.

Tamale season is coming up.

Give peace a chance

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.

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

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

---

Grandpa, how did you help the people invaded by the Nazi's?

I objected, didn't serve and criticized my Country for trying to help.

I want to be just like you, let other people deal with it.

FLBear5630 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

---

Grandpa, how did you help the people invaded by the Nazi's?

I objected, didn't serve and criticized my Country for trying to help.

I want to be just like you, let other people deal with it.

---

" Uncle Frank was killed, Uncle Bob lost both his legs , and 3 of others had severe ' combat fatigue' the rest of their lives.

But we slaughtered the nazis and liberated Europe.

For about 3 weeks.

Then the communist toll over all of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe. "

Blood well spent .

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 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

---

Grandpa, how did you help the people invaded by the Nazi's?

I objected, didn't serve and criticized my Country for trying to help.

I want to be just like you, let other people deal with it.

---

" Uncle Frank was killed, Uncle Bob lost both his legs , and 3 of others had severe ' combat fatigue' the rest of their lives.

But we slaughtered the Germans and liberated Europe.

For about 3 weeks.

Then the communist toll over all of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe. "

Blood well spent .

---

" Uncle Frank was killed, Uncle Bob lost both his legs , and 3 of others had severe ' combat fatigue' the rest of their lives.

But we slaughtered the Germans and liberated Europe.

For about 3 weeks.

Then the communist toll over all of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe. "

Blood well spent .


Gee, Grandpa wasn't there any other way to help? Could we have just sold or given them weapons to defend themselves?

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'.

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.