Is this what modern republicans are? If this GOP era existed during the 80s, Russia would walk all over the US.
The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)
- Thread starter BigBlueFanGA
- Start date
Let’s take an informal poll. Who here thinks Ukraine does NOT have the right to defend itself from Russian aggression?
Without speaking for others, my guess is that EVERYONE agrees with that right. Just like I assume most people believe Armenia has the right to defend itself from Azerbaijan. In fact, most people believe Iraq had the right to defend itself from the U.S. aggression.
Let’s see if anyone disagrees with that right.
I got a particular chuckle out of this phrase.
Granted i don't think hes going to attack. Its most certainly a symbolic move to get attention since we're openly supplying arms and money to a country to sustain their campaign.
The scary thing is the war hawks actually might strike those ships. Low chance but a chance nonetheless because theyre itching for a war.
You’re willing to get the US involved in a hot war over your assumptions of what Putin is thinking about invading a NATO country across the planet, but need to know specifics about the type of missiles abort the warships he sent 90 miles off the coast of the US before you give any consideration to the fact things are needlessly escalating?
For the record, I don’t think you’re going to understand or change your mind. Just hoping others may read what you boomercons are saying and think it might be time to dial back on the escalations.
There Are Only Downsides to Prolonging the War in Ukraine | Mises Institute
As the war in Ukraine drags on in its third year, Ukraine is bleeding and the future is even more gloomy. Unfortunately, even though it is time to end this
What do 4 threatless Russian warships have to do with wanting WW3? Answer: zero. The leaps of conclusions on the most flimsy of data is astounding.
What's scary is you & others think this is a remote threat. You were right with your "symbolic move" comment but had to go on from there based on thin air. As I said, astounding. And astonishing.
Should have been reasoned when the Cuban Missile Crisis was happening. Now that was a real threat of WW3. This is zilch vs. that.
Last edited:
I'd never fight for a foreign country because I'm an American patriot. Guys like you will fight for any country the cia tells you to. So hop along little buddy. I bet you think John Adams and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were Russian stooges too since they warned against getting involved in foreign intanglements.
Do what? They are, ffs.
The point is why are we helping by sending them billions that a lot of that is unaccounted for.
I check this thread once a week or so, and this runnin richie fella is dumb as a box of rocks.
Aren't you the same sky screamer that thinks we're airdropping them cash to spend on whatever?
Nope. Explain to me why you think it's necessary to support them.
I think we have no real interest in Ukraine beside corrupt politicians, we're wasting money on a lost cause, Ukraine is basically half Russia anyway, putin cannot run roughshod over any NATO country, Poland would would smoke Russian ass if they invaded, etc etc.
Weren't Biden, Romney, Pelosi family members all making boatloads of money on various Boards there?
That's what it is about. Using our money to cover up their corruption.
Nope. Explain to me why you think it's necessary to support them.
I think we have no real interest in Ukraine beside corrupt politicians, we're wasting money on a lost cause, Ukraine is basically half Russia anyway, putin cannot run roughshod over any NATO country, Poland would would smoke Russian ass if they invaded, etc etc.
Weren't Biden, Romney, Pelosi family members all making boatloads of money on various Boards there?
That's what it is about. Using our money to cover up their corrup
Lmao, no they were not.
How is Ukraine half Russia? They control 20% of Ukraine.
We now have very solid data that Russia will run out of IFVs by mid-December.
The accelerating AD losses, especially in Crimea, will only happen faster once F-16s arrive, and those planes will hit a number of targets in Crimea. Russian control of Crimea is only going to get more and more tenuous every day.
The new sanctions that forced Russia to stop all trading in dollars and Euros will only accelerate inflation and the inevitable Russian financial collapse.
In the meantime, on the Ukrainian side:
- US military aid has renewed their ability to fight
- They have stopped the Russian advance in northern Kharkiv
- Ukraine now has solid commitments of five Patriot systems, with strong possibilities for two more. They also have the French promise to train Ukrainian pilots on Mirage fighters and get those planes in the sky by the end of the year. There are also a number of other air defense systems promised, including another SAMP/T system, eight NASAMS, and more IRIS-T. By the end of the year, Ukraine will be able to protect itself from Russian missile attacks.
- The new conscription law has substantially fixed the Ukrainian personnel problem, at least once new recruits get trained.
- The relaxation of Western restrictions on hitting targets in Russia will stress Russian supply lines and result in the increased destruction of Russian military equipment.
- F-16s will enable Ukraine to much better target the Russian deep rear.
- US and European production of artillery shells has increased to the point that Ukrainian forces can always fire back. Production next year will approach Russian levels.
- The Swiss conference beginning tomorrow will formally commit most of the world to the restoration of Ukraine's 2014 borders. With the elevated sanctions, so many nations are now getting squeezed into choosing sides, and they aren't choosing Russia.
- The $50 billion that will soon be going to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets will guarantee Ukraine's financial security through 2025 and enable them to invest even more in the drone production that constantly hits Russian airbases, refineries, ships, etc.
Seriously, what's the theory for how Russia is going to win? When the Russian economy has collapsed and they don't have any armored vehicles left, when Russian air defense has collapsed to the point that Ukrainian drones rain down daily in a torrent of Russian destruction?
Here's a twitter thread detailing how Russia will run out of IFVs soon.
Last edited:
Linking from a far-right activist group. Never change HMT, never change. You're no better than the people who think Men can be women.
Project Veritas is an American far-right[14] activist[15] group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.[19] The group produces deceptively edited videos[13] of its undercover operations,[5] which use secret recordings[5] in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.[20][21] Project Veritas also uses entrapment[12] to generate bad publicity for its targets,[2] and has propagated disinformation[23] and conspiracy theories[31] in its videos and operations.
Project Veritas uses deceptive techniques, including recording people without their knowledge and misrepresenting their employees' identities and purposes. It hires former U.S. and British military and intelligence agents to train its employees, who are often called "agents" or "operatives" in internal documents. Internal memos show that Project Veritas clears these activities with its legal team to stay within the boundaries of the law, which The New York Times says is a sign of its interest in "using tactics that test the boundaries of legality and are outside of mainstream reporting techniques".[70][1] Rolling Stone called Project Veritas's reporting practices "dubious", with their reporters actively manipulating their targets.[71]
😂 uses far left fascist communist Wikipedia to make a point.
Starting to think Reechie is a Putin bot.
At least Zelensky was able to quit gay pole dancing for Ukrainian men’s money to blow the American globalists for American tax payer money.
Reechie the Putin bot
Guy, I didn't ask about any that nonsense speculation.
I asked you to explain why YOU think we should be supporting this foolishness.
Amazing, accusing someone of posting a 'far right site, then posting crap from a leftist one.
🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣
This is how they rationalize keeping the war going. Death to the Russians AND the Ukrainians!!
They had video of guy talking. Why do you care who caught the audio and not what was said....??? Oh I think I know..
He posted from a far right Ukraine site. He just wants to only hear what he already believes.
The same reason we supported Afghanistan in the 70s. Amazing how you tards wanna be isolationists. Korea in 1950, Pearl habror 1941, 9/11. The list goes on. But qtards have never been smart.
Because they have a history of editing videos and entraping people. But you'd know that if you read instead of seeing wikipedia and defaulting to ''MUH LEFT''.
Now, let’s look at the party of Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan—and how its growing isolationist bloc is turning against America’s clear-eyed opposition to Kremlin dictators and shirking our long-held commitment to democracies under assault.
In his 1981 inaugural, President Ronald Reagan declared: “To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment…No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”
In the months that followed, he used the bully pulpit to educate the American people—reminding us that “support for freedom fighters is self-defense” and “is tied to our own security,” that “spending for defense is investing in things that are priceless: peace and freedom,” that “we cannot play innocents abroad in a world that’s not innocent.” And he challenged the American people to “stand by our democratic allies” and “not break faith with those who are risking their lives on every continent…to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.”
In various ways—technological assistance, covert aid, weapons shipments, aid for civil society, timely military deployments and shows of force—what came to be called the Reagan Doctrine would aid anti-Kremlin forces and democratic movements resisting aggression in Central America, the Caribbean, Poland, Africa and, of course, Afghanistan. Taking his cues from Reagan, CIA Director William Casey coldly ordered his deputies to “go out and kill me 10,000 Russians until they give up.” Working with indigenous and regional forces, the CIA did that and then some. The Red Army lost 15,000 dead and 35,000 wounded in Afghanistan.
In short, Reagan would today be leading the effort to arm democratic Ukraine in its war of self-defense against Kremlin aggression. His motivations would be twofold.
As an idealist, Reagan believed deeply in freedom, in America’s role in advancing freedom, in America’s responsibility to stand with those willing to stand up to aggression. Thus, Reagan would support Ukraine because Ukraine is fighting for freedom.
Reagan also was a skillful practitioner of hard-nosed realpolitik. Consider his unswerving commitment to “peace through strength,” ruthless proxy war against Moscow in Afghanistan, military buildup that amounted to economic warfare, missile deployments in Europe, naval engagements in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf. Thus, Reagan would support Ukraine with military aid because doing so leverages and exploits a Kremlin miscalculation, weakens Russia’s tyranny, grinds down Moscow’s military capabilities, and advances America’s interests—all at minimal cost in American treasure and none in American blood.
The Republican Party’s commitment to the Reagan Doctrine and support for freedom movements defined it for the better part of four decades.
But today, just 35 percent of self-identified Republicans support military aid for democratic Ukraine in its war of self-defense, with 75 percent of Republicans who support former President Donald Trump opposing Ukraine aid. Some high-profile Republicans are using their platform to slur Ukraine’s president and claim Ukraine is not democratic. Some have stooped to parroting Kremlin misinformation. Others use Russian propaganda to rationalize a kind of isolationism that ignores the most basic lessons of history.
Reagan dismantled the Kremlin’s empire and set in motion a train of events that reversed centuries of Russian aggression. Yet a throbbing bloc within his party now opposes the core tenets of the Reagan Doctrine and shrugs at naked Russian aggression, imperialism and crimes against humanity.
Costs
Isolationists of both the far-left and far-right often talk about the costs of international leadership and global engagement—and they are indeed high—but never about the costs of isolation or disengagement, which are higher: Pearl Harbor in 1941; Korea in 1950; post-Soviet Afghanistan, which birthed the Taliban, which provided safe haven to al-Qaeda, which maimed Manhattan; Iraq in 2011, which spawned ISIS and reopened the Pandora’s Box of chemical warfare; Afghanistan in 2021, which is even now birthing another generation of nightmares.
“In each cycle of retreat,” former National Security Council official Henry Nau observes, America “leaves the world at its own peril.”
Moreover, there are benefits to global engagement—benefits the isolationists fail to consider: It was U.S. leadership and engagement that rolled back a dark age of fascist totalitarianism. It was U.S. leadership and engagement during the Cold War that protected free government, rehabilitated Japan, midwifed Israel’s democracy, and rescued South Korea and West Germany from the prison yard of communism. It was U.S. leadership and engagement after the Cold War that transformed Europe from armed camps into a continent “whole and free.” It was U.S. leadership and engagement on the global stage that prevented a second 9/11, forced the enemy to expend finite resources on survival, and pushed the battlefront away from our shores.
Indeed, it is U.S. leadership and engagement that has prevented great-power war—and all its unthinkable consequences—for almost 80 years. As Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reminds us, “Sometimes our greatest achievements are the bad things we stop from happening.”
In his 1981 inaugural, President Ronald Reagan declared: “To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment…No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”
In the months that followed, he used the bully pulpit to educate the American people—reminding us that “support for freedom fighters is self-defense” and “is tied to our own security,” that “spending for defense is investing in things that are priceless: peace and freedom,” that “we cannot play innocents abroad in a world that’s not innocent.” And he challenged the American people to “stand by our democratic allies” and “not break faith with those who are risking their lives on every continent…to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.”
In various ways—technological assistance, covert aid, weapons shipments, aid for civil society, timely military deployments and shows of force—what came to be called the Reagan Doctrine would aid anti-Kremlin forces and democratic movements resisting aggression in Central America, the Caribbean, Poland, Africa and, of course, Afghanistan. Taking his cues from Reagan, CIA Director William Casey coldly ordered his deputies to “go out and kill me 10,000 Russians until they give up.” Working with indigenous and regional forces, the CIA did that and then some. The Red Army lost 15,000 dead and 35,000 wounded in Afghanistan.
In short, Reagan would today be leading the effort to arm democratic Ukraine in its war of self-defense against Kremlin aggression. His motivations would be twofold.
As an idealist, Reagan believed deeply in freedom, in America’s role in advancing freedom, in America’s responsibility to stand with those willing to stand up to aggression. Thus, Reagan would support Ukraine because Ukraine is fighting for freedom.
Reagan also was a skillful practitioner of hard-nosed realpolitik. Consider his unswerving commitment to “peace through strength,” ruthless proxy war against Moscow in Afghanistan, military buildup that amounted to economic warfare, missile deployments in Europe, naval engagements in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf. Thus, Reagan would support Ukraine with military aid because doing so leverages and exploits a Kremlin miscalculation, weakens Russia’s tyranny, grinds down Moscow’s military capabilities, and advances America’s interests—all at minimal cost in American treasure and none in American blood.
The Republican Party’s commitment to the Reagan Doctrine and support for freedom movements defined it for the better part of four decades.
But today, just 35 percent of self-identified Republicans support military aid for democratic Ukraine in its war of self-defense, with 75 percent of Republicans who support former President Donald Trump opposing Ukraine aid. Some high-profile Republicans are using their platform to slur Ukraine’s president and claim Ukraine is not democratic. Some have stooped to parroting Kremlin misinformation. Others use Russian propaganda to rationalize a kind of isolationism that ignores the most basic lessons of history.
Reagan dismantled the Kremlin’s empire and set in motion a train of events that reversed centuries of Russian aggression. Yet a throbbing bloc within his party now opposes the core tenets of the Reagan Doctrine and shrugs at naked Russian aggression, imperialism and crimes against humanity.
Costs
Isolationists of both the far-left and far-right often talk about the costs of international leadership and global engagement—and they are indeed high—but never about the costs of isolation or disengagement, which are higher: Pearl Harbor in 1941; Korea in 1950; post-Soviet Afghanistan, which birthed the Taliban, which provided safe haven to al-Qaeda, which maimed Manhattan; Iraq in 2011, which spawned ISIS and reopened the Pandora’s Box of chemical warfare; Afghanistan in 2021, which is even now birthing another generation of nightmares.
“In each cycle of retreat,” former National Security Council official Henry Nau observes, America “leaves the world at its own peril.”
Moreover, there are benefits to global engagement—benefits the isolationists fail to consider: It was U.S. leadership and engagement that rolled back a dark age of fascist totalitarianism. It was U.S. leadership and engagement during the Cold War that protected free government, rehabilitated Japan, midwifed Israel’s democracy, and rescued South Korea and West Germany from the prison yard of communism. It was U.S. leadership and engagement after the Cold War that transformed Europe from armed camps into a continent “whole and free.” It was U.S. leadership and engagement on the global stage that prevented a second 9/11, forced the enemy to expend finite resources on survival, and pushed the battlefront away from our shores.
Indeed, it is U.S. leadership and engagement that has prevented great-power war—and all its unthinkable consequences—for almost 80 years. As Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reminds us, “Sometimes our greatest achievements are the bad things we stop from happening.”
Just NATO openly discussing nuclear readiness and deploying weapons this morning.
''Hitler hasn't bothered us, why are we sending aid to the UK and France?''- Cavetard Catfan circa 1940.
If Putin is Hitler, and Russia is 1940s Germany, how should we respond to their warships 90 miles off our coast?
So you have no concerns about Hitler striking the United States to start a war, but you think he’ll march across Europe which starts a war with the United States?
So there’s no actual risk to the Untied States, but the United States should fund the entire war?
You know we have security commitments with Europe, right? If he strikes any NATO country that brings the US into war.
---
The New York Times & Rolling Stone, now there are a couple of truth-telling rags.
That is exactly what I said.
He could strike Poland and start a war with the United States or he could strike Miami and start a war with the United States.
You compared the situation to 1940s Germany.
Why would you expect Hitler to start a war with the United States by bombing an ally, and not just start the war on US soil?
Or, do you have no expectation of Putin marching past Ukraine and your comparison to Germany doesn’t really hold any water?
