ADVERTISEMENT

The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)

You’re the one in the Lazy Boy spouting irrelevant ad hominems supporting a war and death that has NO impact on your family or your wellbeing.

Life saving aid would be for world leadership to step up and attempt to put an end to this war. Financing a war that kills Ukrainians is not life saving. Get a new schtick, James, because you lack logic.
If Russia isn't stopped. China could move in on taiwan. And Putin could try the Baltics or Poland. Im of draft age. Wanna try that again?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Caveman Catfan
If Russia isn't stopped. China could move in on taiwan. And Putin could try the Baltics or Poland. Im of draft age. Wanna try that again?

Oh. Keeping Russia in a perpetual war will stop China? It is far more likely that you get drafted because this war lingers and Ukraine needs bodies than it is you will be drafted to defend a Poland. 🤦‍♂️

Nice one Drama James.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RunninRichie
The only sea Ukraine is on is the Black Sea, which, according to Google Maps, Russia is on as well.

Their military base is in Crimea, and is a deep water port, not something they could do on their shore that is additionally also mountainous.

After the coup in 2014, they didn't have to invade Ukraine to take it because they were already there renting it and Ukraine was in no condition militarily to do anything about it. There's no way they ever give it up without something drastic, like a complete collapse of their government or NATO taking it from them.

Crimea also highlights one of the many logical iconsistincies of the pro-war argument, which I find completely incoherent, not just ignoratn and myopic. ON the one hand, we are against Russia taking land from Ukraine because the people don't want to be Russian and would prefer Western European orientation, but on the other hand we would support taking Crimea back from Russia, whose people are Russian and unanimously decided to join Russia after the maidan revolution. They want to be Russian, believe it or not: liberating it would be against the will of the people living there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneDougan
Their military base is in Crimea, and is a deep water port, not something they could do on their shore that is additionally also mountainous.

After the coup in 2014, they didn't have to invade Ukraine to take it because they were already there renting it and Ukraine was in no condition militarily to do anything about it. There's no way they ever give it up without something drastic, like a complete collapse of their government or NATO taking it from them.

Crimea also highlights one of the many logical iconsistincies of the pro-war argument, which I find completely incoherent, not just ignoratn and myopic. ON the one hand, we are against Russia taking land from Ukraine because the people don't want to be Russian and would prefer Western European orientation, but on the other hand we would support taking Crimea back from Russia, whose people are Russian and unanimously decided to join Russia after the maidan revolution. They want to be Russian, believe it or not: liberating it would be against the will of the people living there.
1) Great post
2) Your last paragraph is exactly why I don't want to get involved
 
If Russia isn't stopped. China could move in on taiwan. And Putin could try the Baltics or Poland. Im of draft age. Wanna try that again?

That's like saying if you don't stop a bully from picking on your kid at school, your neighbor will take a chance on trying to bang your wife.
 
An example is Len Blavatnik, a dual U.S.-U.K. citizen and one of the largest donors to GOP political action committees in the 2015-16 election cycle. Blavatnik's family emigrated to the U.S. in the late '70s from the U.S.S.R. and he returned to Russia when the Soviet Union began to collapse in the late '80s.

Data from the Federal Election Commission show that Blavatnik's campaign contributions dating back to 2009-10 were fairly balanced across party lines and relatively modest for a billionaire. During that season he contributed $53,400. His contributions increased to $135,552 in 2011-12 and to $273,600 in 2013-14, still bipartisan.

In 2015-16, everything changed. Blavatnik's political contributions soared and made a hard right turn as he pumped $6.35 million into GOP political action committees, with millions of dollars going to top Republican leaders including Sens. Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.


In 2017, donations continued, with $41,000 going to both Republican and Democrat candidates, along with $1 million to McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund.
This is one guy. That’s a feather, not a wing.
 
Can somebody please explain to me again why Ukraine is of strategic importance to the US? Keep in mind it has never been in the past. Roosevelt let Stalin starve Ukraine back in the 30's. What's different now?

EDIT: and don't float some "Putin in 2024 = Hitler in 1938" or "it's good for our economy" bullshit.
They haven’t, can’t, and won’t explain it. There’s no strategic importance. Europe is secured by NATO.
 
Putin has been in charge of Russia since 2000 and he's taken over a small part of Ukraine. So I guess by 2050 he'll get to Kiev, and by 2075 he'll maybe move into Moldova. We should spend a trillion to ensure this doesn't happen, because I don't want a 125 year old Putin becoming Hitler 2.0.
I can remember when the Russian military was the butt of a lot of jokes. Now they’re the Wehrmacht circa 1940.

The only answer is trillions of dollars stolen from our grandkids. Nothing else will work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneDougan
If Russia isn't stopped. China could move in on taiwan. And Putin could try the Baltics or Poland. Im of draft age. Wanna try that again?
Bless your heart.

I bet I’ve typed this ten times in this thread:

The Baltics and Poland are in NATO. He’s not attacking NATO. If he wants Armageddon he could launch nukes tonight.

This has zero to do with China. There’s never been evidence to the contrary. They will or won’t attack Taiwan based on our strength, not our Ukrainian policy.

If anything, we are getting weaker and it’s obvious. Open border, spiraling debt, demoralized military that can’t recruit, and depleted reserves. The Ukraine debacle only exacerbates each of these.
 
Bless your heart.

I bet I’ve typed this ten times in this thread:

The Baltics and Poland are in NATO. He’s not attacking NATO. If he wants Armageddon he could launch nukes tonight.

This has zero to do with China. There’s never been evidence to the contrary. They will or won’t attack Taiwan based on our strength, not our Ukrainian policy.

If anything, we are getting weaker and it’s obvious. Open border, spiraling debt, demoralized military that can’t recruit, and depleted reserves. The Ukraine debacle only exacerbates each of these.
You're kidding yourself. Ukraine is an example to China of whether we have strength or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catemus
Dmitry Medvedev said that Russia will not stop until it captures Kyiv, and called Odesa a "Russian city"

Medvedev said that in order to "achieve the goals of the special operation, we will have to reach Kyiv." According to him, if the Kremlin fails to do it now, "they will do it after some time". The Kremlin believes that Kyiv is "a threat to Russia's existence" and anyway it is a "Russian city".


Sounds like a partner for peace and definitely trustworthy in a negotiation. They want it all, folks. Been telling you all this for months.
 
Dmitry Medvedev said that Russia will not stop until it captures Kyiv, and called Odesa a "Russian city"

Medvedev said that in order to "achieve the goals of the special operation, we will have to reach Kyiv." According to him, if the Kremlin fails to do it now, "they will do it after some time". The Kremlin believes that Kyiv is "a threat to Russia's existence" and anyway it is a "Russian city".


Sounds like a partner for peace and definitely trustworthy in a negotiation. They want it all, folks. Been telling you all this for months.


If you guys are so worried about the Baltics and NATO countries coming under attack if we don’t wipe Russia off the planet, it seems like Russia indicating they have no plans to go past Kyiv would be an opening for negotiation.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Catemus
So, China dictates whether we commit to the extension of this war. Hhhhhhmmmm. Who, then, has the strength?
No. If you want to show China we lack strength, don't support Ukraine. If you wish to send that message, your choice.

BTW, I heard 2-hand that on his love-in with Ingram the other night, Trump dodged saying he wouldn't support Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catemus
If you guys are so worried about the Baltics and NATO countries coming under attack if we don’t wipe Russia off the planet, it seems like Russia indicating they have no plans to go past Kyiv would be an opening for negotiation.
Indicating? LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catemus
If you guys are so worried about the Baltics and NATO countries coming under attack if we don’t wipe Russia off the planet, it seems like Russia indicating they have no plans to go past Kyiv would be an opening for negotiation.
You missed the point. Some posters in here repeatedly state and believe Putin’s conquest goals was the Donbas only, and warm-water port access in the south. False. They are flat-out wrong.

Never stated that I feared Russia would attack NATO although we know FSB officers are in those countries carrying out assassinations.
 
No. If you want to show China we lack strength, don't support Ukraine. If you wish to send that message, your choice.

BTW, I heard 2-hand that on his love-in with Ingram the other night, Trump dodged saying he wouldn't support Ukraine.

Don’t confuse me with someone who cares about Trump. But, you keep focused on him, if you must.

Your perspective on China is such a western view. You think China would find it weak if we said we have no interest in Ukraine and acted accordingly? Wrong. China wants us to borrow our way into deeper debt over a war we should probably ignore.
 
OK, the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation flat out saying they are going to stop at Kyiv.

Is that better than “indicating?”
OK, the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation flat out saying they are going to stop at Kyiv.

Is that better than “indicating?”
It is, if what he says means anything. Do you believe him? Why? Does he speak with Putin's full authority?
 
You missed the point. Some posters in here repeatedly state and believe Putin’s conquest goals was the Donbas only, and warm-water port access in the south. False. They are flat-out wrong.

Never stated that I feared Russia would attack NATO although we know FSB officers are in those countries carrying out assassinations.
Even carried one out in Spain recently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catemus
We beat the absolute piss out of Iraq in Desert Storm.
---
But look at Iraq now. You can't get involved militarily in countries that despise you, you'll never win. Iraq had no WMD, that was all a lie concocted by the same sort of bad actors trying to lead us into more idiotic wars today. We had marginal interest in Afghanistan, getting OBL, but once we missed him we should have left, instead of spending 20 years, a couple of trillion dollars & pointlessly losing US lives.
 
---
But look at Iraq now. You can't get involved militarily in countries that despise you, you'll never win. Iraq had no WMD, that was all a lie concocted by the same sort of bad actors trying to lead us into more idiotic wars today. We had marginal interest in Afghanistan, getting OBL, but once we missed him we should have left, instead of spending 20 years, a couple of trillion dollars & pointlessly losing US lives.
I was talking about Desert Storm from the early 90's, which is a different war than the one we did in the 2000's.
 
I was talking about Desert Storm from the early 90's, which is a different war than the one we did in the 2000's.
---
But ultimately look what happened years later. Iraq is now mostly under Iranian control. I think it would have been more logical to have ejected Iraq from Kuwait, but left Iraq under Saddam's control & not invaded again. The outcome would probably been no worse than what we have today.
 
An American journalist died in a Ukrainian prison last year under similar circumstances. Weird how these two countries may be filled with the same type of people.


If the two nations’ people were of the same type there wouldn’t be an ongoing war. Russians consider Ukrainians to be their subordinates. Ukrainians generally despise Russians. Their history with Russia has been one of continual conflict and suffering.
No it hasn't. read a history book. Literally 100's of years of history. Kyiv was the capital of Russia for a bit. The head of the USSR was from Ukraine at one point. They were brothers. You can make up new facts but please quit changing history to justify war.
 
I even posted quotes/video, like Blinken under Obama responding on what would happen if Russia invaded, which was exactly this. Something along the lines of "there is nothing we could do but fund them; russia would win and exert their will due to proximity, more resources and men"

It was known... this was understood, the causes for the war and how it would play out.
And everyone warned them that Ukraine was different than Poland, Latvia and Estonia. They told the warmongers that Russia would respond to Nato moving into Ukr.
I think Carlson is completely wowed by Putin. His interview of the dictator proves that for me. He definitely seems to subscribe to the idea that an authoritarian leader gives stability to a country.

He doesn’t seem to understand our form of government, three distinct and equal branches that effectively create checks and balances for each other. He definitely doesn’t like the turmoil that is a distinction of our system.

Here’s an interview of Carlson after his meeting with Putin:

It illustrates how shallow are his views when it comes to Putin. You’ll also see the context in which he commented that, “all leaders kill people.”
Unbelievable.
Do you really think that or do you feel like you need to say that to justify your horrible take on this war?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WildcatofNati2
Luckily, you and and other boomers opinions don’t mean much. Meanwhile, many US generals and NATO generals believe Ukraine can win the war. If they keep getting the aid necessary to do so. So F-16s, artillery shells, etc.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4481737-russia-broken-stalemate-ukraine-gates/

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4481154-ukraine-can-no-longer-win/

You should read more news. Nobody thinks Ukraine can win anymore. Even the biggest of holdouts are admitting it's over. You talk of f16's.... They have got like 2 in a year. All the talk of aid being held up in congress.... we aren't able to send them the stuff we paid for 6 months ago. None of you guys want to admit it. A german general warned his government in 2017 that they only had 20 main battle tanks and 2 weeks of ammo if they had to go to war... Now you are seeing the reality of Europe refusing to spend on defense. There are only 4 countries actually sending stuff to Ukraine on a par basis with us. The rest are an absolute joke.

England sent 14 tanks to Ukraine..... Let that sink in with your fantasies of everyone sending tons of amazing tech to Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WildcatofNati2
Well, Trumpsters whom condemn me & my ilk that feel Trump is a pox get labeled as liberals, and apparently worse, as rinos, by them because they mistakenly think we'll vote for a Dim candidate. So misguided they are.
You'd send my son to die in Ukraine and you wouldn't go yourself... So yea... I'm going to talk a little bit of shit about you.
 
An example is Len Blavatnik, a dual U.S.-U.K. citizen and one of the largest donors to GOP political action committees in the 2015-16 election cycle. Blavatnik's family emigrated to the U.S. in the late '70s from the U.S.S.R. and he returned to Russia when the Soviet Union began to collapse in the late '80s.

Data from the Federal Election Commission show that Blavatnik's campaign contributions dating back to 2009-10 were fairly balanced across party lines and relatively modest for a billionaire. During that season he contributed $53,400. His contributions increased to $135,552 in 2011-12 and to $273,600 in 2013-14, still bipartisan.

In 2015-16, everything changed. Blavatnik's political contributions soared and made a hard right turn as he pumped $6.35 million into GOP political action committees, with millions of dollars going to top Republican leaders including Sens. Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.


In 2017, donations continued, with $41,000 going to both Republican and Democrat candidates, along with $1 million to McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund.
Just because I don't want to pay for Ukraine doesn't mean I want to support Russia. As a matter of fact I would be willing to take back Uranium one deal and take back all the tech Clinton gave Russia during the Skolkovo deal. I'd also be more than willing to ban all foreign investment into US politics.... but that includes China with the Bidens.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT