Politics

[PHOENIX PHIL]

He has been a bit off the rails on the whole vaccine and autism issue for a long time. Though it was a popular belief 10 or 15 years ago. He has been legitimately hard on Fauci which is refreshing for a democrat.

My main objection is that he is as anti-Ukraine as Tucker Carlson and as wrong in his military analysis of the war to date as Douglas McGregor and the Russian news media.

He has no chance against the Democrat machine. And unlike most elections, were he to run as an independent, he likely will hurt the Republican nominee more than Biden. The media from CNN on left consider him a kook and will treat him so.

I remain convinced the character sitting on the sidelines awaiting the fatal Biden stumble is Newsome. Yes, he has turned California into a cultural and economic cesspit (with some serious mayoral and legislative help), but every single current Biden voter would rush to him (unlike Kamala). And unlike the two leading candidates he is young, physically good looking (if you are into that sort of hair), and very articulate.

It seems I'm rubbing off on you....be careful.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Red Leg

I think there is more risk and downside compared with little upside in supporting the Ukraine in its fight with Russia. Making plenty of people rich, and we're paying for it.

Please explain why I am wrong.

I know you asked Red Leg, but I'll add my two cents, which is 2 more than you paid to read it, so you determine it's worth. But I see a lot of downside at this point in time in not supporting Ukraine. Early on, I was more in line with your thinking. But not now. This seems to me to be bordering on taking candy from a child. The Russian military has been exposed as being far too overestimated. On this July 4th eve, this is somewhat akin to our own revolutionary war, no one would have given the then colonies a chance to win, but here we are.

If we back off or worse and not support Ukraine now, we will look even weaker to Russia but more importantly to China. Running away when victory is bordering on imminent. There is an opportunity here to change the face of Eastern Europe for a very long time. It is a gift from Putin, to hand it back now just seems foolish with tremendous amount of downside.

Again just my dos centavos.

 

[jpr9954]

While the ideological, social and economic policies of the potential candidates is of great importance for the future of the country, don't loose sight of their 2A stance. Economic realities tend to restrict most leaders from getting too far into the crazy area (OK your current incumbent may be an exception). Firearm and hunting policies are what directly affect the ability of most on this forum to enjoy life and protect their families.

Trump still has the instincts of a NYC liberal when it comes to guns. His bump stock ban was and is of dubious legality. It was the predecessor that gave BATFE and Biden the go ahead to redefine frames and ban pistol braces. He supposedly was willing to reintroduce a “assault weapon” ban until he talked to the NRA.

With majorities in both the House and Senate in his first 2 years, we should have gotten national reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act which would have removed suppressors from the NFA.

By contrast, others like DeSantis are more pro-2A. DeSantis did support and sign the permitless carry aka constitutional carry bill n Florida.

Where Trump did good for gun rights was through his judicial nominations.

 

[Red Leg]

Red Leg

I think there is more risk and downside compared with little upside in supporting the Ukraine in its fight with Russia. Making plenty of people rich, and we're paying for it.

Please explain why I am wrong.

I have explained my reasoning with respect to our support of Ukraine at least a dozen times within this thread. I shall try once more briefly.

First of all, I do not live in a world where supporting Russian national interests is compatible with supporting those of the United States. Certainly the Russian state has no difficulty understanding those diametric differences, and it is depressing to me that there are Americans who would nevertheless agree with them.

Secondly, I was a soldier during the Cold War when we legitimately feared Russian power. We have had thirty years where that existential threat was more a nuisance. I can not conceive of an American national interest that is served by allowing Russia to regain that sort of power and ability to threaten this country. Adding 40 million subjects to its population and both the industrial and natural resources of Ukraine to the Russian economy would be a huge step in the regeneration of that threat.

Thirdly, we as a nation have championed the rights of people to pursue self-determination. Ukraine is proving with the blood of her sons and daughters every single day their right to chose their on future. How is it possible this country, with this heritage, would turn its back on that struggle?

Fourth. Read some history. Other than the Civil War, the most destructive wars in our past were fought as a result of events happening in Europe. In 1938, Adolph Hitler demanded the right to seize the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. The United Kingdom and France had at that point both the military might and moral authority to bring Hitler's ambitions to a screeching halt. Instead, they blinked and an emboldened Wehrmacht marched into Poland a year later initiating WWII. It was a war in which we and the rest of Europe paid an enormous cost of blood and treasure. I absolutely believe we can either stop Putin now or face a NATO Article V decision later when he moves against the Baltic states.

Fifth. Our current greatest threat is China. China forged an alliance with Russia two years ago because it believed a militaristic Russian power in Europe would divert US attention from the Pacific. The surest way of defeating that relationship and allowing us to focus on China is to give Ukraine the means to defang Russia before they ever represent that sort of threat. The surest way of furthering Chinese ambitions is to ignore it.

Finally, you will not find a stronger "America first" proponent than me. But America first means defending our national interests - not our coastline. We have embraced isolationism to our great cost several times over the last two centuries. Now is not the time to do it again.

 

[Inline6]

Trump still has the instincts of a NYC liberal when it comes to guns. His bump stock ban was and is of dubious legality. It was the predecessor that gave BATFE and Biden the go ahead to redefine frames and ban pistol braces. He supposedly was willing to reintroduce a “assault weapon” ban until he talked to the NRA.

With majorities in both the House and Senate in his first 2 years, we should have gotten national reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act which would have removed suppressors from the NFA.

By contrast, others like DeSantis are more pro-2A. DeSantis did support and sign the permitless carry aka constitutional carry bill n Florida.

Where Trump did good for gun rights was through his judicial nominations.

The hearing protection act was shelved due to the Las Vegas shooting that took place.

That said, agree Trump is not a true supporter of 2A. His son absolutely is, I'm not sure he would make it as far as his father. Feel like being his son will cast Jr. in an unvotable shadow.

 

[Ray B]

the most destructive wars in our past were fought as a result of events happening in Europe.

Just wondering, What part of Europe is Japan?

 

[Nevada Mike]

Red Leg

NATO is moving east. Look at a map. Putin certainly feels threatened by this. Add the rhetoric about extending the NATO/American reach to the southern border of Russia in the Ukraine (given our previous adventures in Eastern Europe in the Sixties it seems quite understandable that Russia feels defensive) and thus, tensions increase. Although Russia certainly knows they cannot win an all-out war with the US, our ignominious exit from Afghanistan has encouraged Putin to push a bit harder.

You seem to think we need to defeat Russia through a proxy war in the Ukraine. I think that we have little to lose in a diplomatic approach to de-escalation. A couple years ago we (the USA) thought of the Ukraine as a corrupt oligarchy, now we're piling on the treasure because it suits the purpose of those who view this war as another opportunity to gain a bit of ground and enrich a whole class of already rich Americans. How long before we have American troops on the ground and shooting at Russians?

Most of the people in our democracy are against further 'foreign entanglements' of this nature.

I am not talking appeasement... just common sense in the interests of the American people at large.

 

[VertigoBE]

I usually try not to pay much mind to your posts Ray. But you decided to make this one personal? And sarcastic? Well I am impressed you knew it as well. We even went to different schools.

But do tell. Based upon your economic acumen, how long would it take Trump to get oil to $25 a barrel? And were he successful, how would he address the subsequent catastrophe across our oil producing regions? But you do realize what you are calling a Trump achievement is completely false? It is just another Trump myth that is getting some current play on the nether region sites.

It is indeed true that the pandemic did cause a global supply glut during some of Trump's last year in office as demand collapsed. It actually went to less than twelve dollars a barrel for a short time. However, on his last day of office, as things had begun to recover, the price of oil was $52.33. I would just as soon not shut down the world economy or destroy our oil industry to take prices below $25.

Here are actual annual oil prices since 2016. They will help your analysis.

I guess Trump must have a different plan.

Year	Average Closing Price	Year Open	Year High	Year Low	Year Close	Annual % Change
Crude Oil Prices - Historical Annual Data
2023	$74.83	$80.26	$83.13	$66.74	$70.13	-12.89%
2022	$94.53	$76.08	$123.70	$71.59	$80.51	7.05%
2021	$68.17	$47.62	$84.65	$47.62	$75.21	55.01%
2020	$39.68	$61.17	$63.27	$11.26	$48.52	-20.64%
2019	$56.99	$46.31	$66.24	$46.31	$61.14	35.42%
2018	$65.23	$60.37	$77.41	$44.48	$45.15	-25.32%
2017	$50.80	$52.36	$60.46	$42.48	$60.46	12.48%
2016	$43.29	$36.81	$54.01	$26.19	$53.75	44.76%

25$/b oil would destroy the US shale oil industry long before it would destroy Russian oil production.

 

[mark-hunter]

I wish to all American friends happy independence day!

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Likewise, happy July 4th to you all, happy Independence Day! May Almighty God give you the gift of wise, honest, brave and straight leadership.

 

[VertigoBE]

Happy 4th of July indeed!

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Reading all the back and forth here, particularly with regards to Ukraine, it is very apparent to me that folks are quick to voice their own opinions without hearing and giving weight to the sensible argument of others. There are absolutes, and then there are inflections, and the absolutes should always be common ground, no?
So for example here are some absolutes:
1. If Ukraine had just rolled over in the first 72 hours as expected, an emboldened Russia would have been on Poland’s doorstep.
2. Ukraine’s resistance exposed Russia’s weakness and weakened it much further.
3. NATO has expanded.
4. NATO’s leadership is not centered upon a personality and it’s posture has remained purely defensive.

The there is the opinion, and it can go on for pages:
5. What conditions need to prevail to end this conflict? A push back to the 2014 borders, or a territorial compromise?
6. Would a withdrawal of IS support mean the fall of Ukraine?
7. Would Russia stop it’s ambitions if It conquered Ukraine?

It is totally illogical to propose that US support should end without seriously considering the highly likely consequences, not just for the USA but for the rest of the free world. Leadership comes with responsibility, by sheer definition it is so. There are others eager to take your place, and it won’t be business as usual if they do.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Each and every year, Independence Day fills me with a renewed sense of pride and confidence. After the celebration of the birth of our Lord and Savior, it is, IMHO, the most important birthday on the calendar. It saddens me that so many seem intent on trying to rip out its underpinnings, and yet... I remain hopeful, always, that things can be turned around and put back on the right track.

To those who have had a more direct role in the preservation of what our country stands for, in whatever capacity that might have been or be... thank you.

Happy Independence Day my Africa Hunting brethren.

 

[Scott CWO]

Red Leg

NATO is moving east. Look at a map. Putin certainly feels threatened by this. Add the rhetoric about extending the NATO/American reach to the southern border of Russia in the Ukraine (given our previous adventures in Eastern Europe in the Sixties it seems quite understandable that Russia feels defensive) and thus, tensions increase. Although Russia certainly knows they cannot win an all-out war with the US, our ignominious exit from Afghanistan has encouraged Putin to push a bit harder.

You seem to think we need to defeat Russia through a proxy war in the Ukraine. I think that we have little to lose in a diplomatic approach to de-escalation. A couple years ago we (the USA) thought of the Ukraine as a corrupt oligarchy, now we're piling on the treasure because it suits the purpose of those who view this war as another opportunity to gain a bit of ground and enrich a whole class of already rich Americans. How long before we have American troops on the ground and shooting at Russians?

Most of the people in our democracy are against further 'foreign entanglements' of this nature.

I am not talking appeasement... just common sense in the interests of the American people at large.

NATO is a defensive coalition. Yes, it has added members that wanted to join, many of which were previously suppressed as part of the USSR. So what? Do any of them or us desire to invade Russia? No!

Just because some Russians have a paranoid fear of a NATO attack does not make it a plausible argument or something that you should support. Whose side are you on anyway?

Some Russians want to rebuild the Soviet Empire, Putin included. That’s the real reason they don’t like NATO expansion. It has nothing to do with the Motherland being invaded but that’s what they try to say. I can’t believe you fall for it.

 

[rookhawk]

Finally, you will not find a stronger "America first" proponent than me. But America first means defending our national interests - not our coastline. We have embraced isolationism to our great cost several times over the last two centuries. Now is not the time to do it again.

@Red Leg I struggle to find balance with this statement when we go to the logical step of using the Military to that end. I can't help but think that a few bribes from the CIA to the right stooges can achieve these ends without the high cost? (American lives, lack of military readiness due to over-deployment).

While ancient news, it seems like the military-industrial complex likes land wars more than national interests in past conflicts including the Iraq war. We could have found some Bath party general to take out Saddam for a half-bil and saved us a total waste of lives and resources. I feel like a Russian coup could have solved this as well.

Why do we reserve the CIA for taking over worthless countries with the help of fruit companies while using the Military in Europe?

The way I see it, if Putin does not suffer a coup or die of an illness, he won't lose this war. All the indicators from Peter Zeihan and others is that he needs to lose 500,000 men before the land war ends. He will. It will. But then what? Nukes. Not end of the world ICBMs aimed at London and Washington, but conventional nukes in Eastern Europe that will force a negotiated settlement after Luhansk and Dombas regions are ripped to shreds.

Seems like an "everybody loses" scenario predicated on the initial use of military force leading to small nuclear war and negotiated settlement that was worse than we could have achieved in week 1 of the conflict? UNLESS the goal wasn't peace in Ukraine, but rather the death of the breeding stock of Russia forever. (and this is where I don't abide)

 

[cash_tx]

Leadership comes with responsibility, by sheer definition it is so. There are others eager to take your place, and it won’t be business as usual if they do.

These are very profound words, Kevin; and thank you for articulating this so well.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

@rookhawk: Conventional nukes???

Hopefully that old fashion way of ending wars, "Sue for Peace," comes back into vogue.

 

[Brent in Az]

Cocaine in the Whitehouse. Scumbags in the Whitehouse.

Sad days for the USA .

 

[Red Leg]

@Red Leg I struggle to find balance with this statement when we go to the logical step of using the Military to that end. I can't help but think that a few bribes from the CIA to the right stooges can achieve these ends without the high cost? (American lives, lack of military readiness due to over-deployment).

While ancient news, it seems like the military-industrial complex likes land wars more than national interests in past conflicts including the Iraq war. We could have found some Bath party general to take out Saddam for a half-bil and saved us a total waste of lives and resources. I feel like a Russian coup could have solved this as well.

Why do we reserve the CIA for taking over worthless countries with the help of fruit companies while using the Military in Europe?

The way I see it, if Putin does not suffer a coup or die of an illness, he won't lose this war. All the indicators from Peter Zeihan and others is that he needs to lose 500,000 men before the land war ends. He will. It will. But then what? Nukes. Not end of the world ICBMs aimed at London and Washington, but conventional nukes in Eastern Europe that will force a negotiated settlement after Luhansk and Dombas regions are ripped to shreds.

Seems like an "everybody loses" scenario predicated on the initial use of military force leading to small nuclear war and negotiated settlement that was worse than we could have achieved in week 1 of the conflict? UNLESS the goal wasn't peace in Ukraine, but rather the death of the breeding stock of Russia forever. (and this is where I don't abide)

You find a lack of balance in my statements?

Allow me to offer my world view with respect to American national interests. I am not asking for your approval. I am simply providing you what I believe to be true after a lifetime of being involved in more than just the periphery of these issues.

We are citizens of a world-wide empire. Unlike Rome, it is based more upon the reach of our trade and influence rather than the boots of our soldiers. Because of size alone, there are no exact historical precedents, but the Byzantine Empire between 500-1000AD or perhaps Venice of the late Middle Ages offer some clues. That commercial empire, and hence the prosperity of our people, depends upon the unhindered access to international markets. Those markets have been made more secure over the last two centuries by agreements, treaties, alliances, and the periodic use of military power.

Generally, the leadership of our country has recognized the fundamental nature of our imperial economy for most of the existence of our nation. After all, the Monroe Doctrine was formed in 1823. While defensive in nature by opposing European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere, it in effect carved out two continents of areas of critical American national interests - at the beginning of the 19th century less than forty years after ratification of our constitution. Our merchant shipping, banking, and vast natural resources coupled with periodic tension with Britain and France, and wars with Mexico and more importantly Spain before the end of that century solidified that international economic foundation.

Since then we have had periodic bouts of isolationism. The current "America First" movement is merely the latest example of imitating an ostrich in a sandbox. During the two previous episodes we were rudely yanked back to reality at great cost in the lives of our people and our treasury. The conclusion of those wars left the empire more powerful and wielding ever more influence. It is both a role and a stage from which we can not exit without doing great harm to the well being of our citizens, and now, a vast number of people in the world who have come to share our values. and economic prosperity.

So how do we maintain this worldwide empire to the benefit of this large slice of physical territory and peoples?

Foremost, we have a worldwide web of mutually beneficial international trade. Because that international exchange of goods it is not exploitive like traditional empires, it has tended to create a web of mutually supportive allies representing all sorts of regimes ranging from Arab potentates, sophisticated Europeans, and Chinese businessmen. Tellingly, they include former enemies who are now prosperous allies.

We have a military with broad international reach capable of physically protecting those trade routes and relationships. Because of our wealth, that military costs only 3% of the nation's GDP (somewhat paltry for such a diabolical, vast, and powerful military industrial complex).

During World War II we finally realized the importance of a formal intelligence gathering capability. The wartime OSS, largely emulating Great Britain's SIS, became the CIA. It remains primarily just that - an intelligence gathering organization. It does that through technical means and through a worldwide network of paid informants called agents who are managed by CIA operatives called case officers. The agency does have the capability for direct action and influence operations, but that is minor compared to is primary mission.

The notion that a president can consistently and effectively influence the course of international events through the agency is largely the creation of novelists and Hollywood. That doesn't mean these operations haven't been attempted periodically, the Bay of Pigs and the fall of the Allende government, are two of the mot notable. The solidification of Castro's rule and the rise of Pinochet serve to illustrate the folly of most such initiatives.

I frankly find the notion that there is or was some way to bribe the Russians into good behavior as laughable.

Putin will claim to have "won" regardless of the outcome of this war. One of the advantages of dictatorships. But militarily, strategically, and politically he has already pretty much lost this war. He has destroyed two and a half decades committed to building a modern Russian military. His modernized mechanized forces are twisted heaps of burnt metal on the Ukrainian Steppe. His troops are resorting to using T54/55 and T62 tanks that their grandfathers used along the Fulda Gap. His air force can't even fly over Ukrainian territory. The Baltic has gone from being a contested Russian outlet to the sea to a NATO lake due to the addition of Finland and pending addition of Sweden. Germany has deployed a full mechanized brigade to the Baltics and Finland is already hosting US aircraft and technical intelligence gathering assets. Kaliningrad has become an enclave in the middle of NATO. He was worried about Ukraine joining NATO, but now, because of Finland he has added over 1300 km of shared NATO border with NATO troops now within marching distance of St. Petersburg. What a strategic genius. And not a single American has fired a round in anger.

This war will indeed end in negotiations. Those will begin in earnest when one side believes the effort is no longer worth the cost in treasure, lives, and strategic position. If NATO stays the course, I remain confident that will be Russia that blinks first. Certainly Ukraine, fighting for its right to exist, has displayed a tenacity that Russian troops will never have.

Finally, for all the reasons I listed above, I find this notion of the existence of some malevolent organized military industrial complex nonsensical. If you want to see organized power affecting our political and budgetary decisions, you need go no farther than the Social Security and Medicare Bureaucracies. Those agencies control nearly 20% of our GDP.

Do presidents make the wrong choices with respect to the use of military force? Absolutely. But that is hardly the fault of the soldiers and materiel manufacturers tasked with trying to carry out those orders. For instance, no governmental entity was more resistant to the invasion of Iraq than was the US Army. Shinseki became a pariah among the Rumsfeld crowd far voicing his doubts in senate testimony (I was sitting directly behind him).

And after competing against Boeing, GD, and Lockheed Martin as a fairly senior appointed officer in Northrop Grumman for more than a decade, I can't tell you how ridiculous it sounds that we would all go into some dark room and plot a war.