Politics

[Big5]

 

[jpr9954]

 

[spike.t]

if l really gave half a f@#k about the BS being spread about the Nato proxy war in Ukraine l may have spent a bit of time to give an education spike but in your opinion l am talking out my arse because l have a different perspective than you because l did my own research and didn't just follow the leader by listening to MSM BS mostly proven to be propaganda and lie's to get more money and arms to keep this war going till the last Ukrainian, or maybe worse

c'mon spike you must have had a good laugh at the "ghost of Kiev" or the "snake island, go f@#k yourself Russia" propaganda LMFAO had quite a few sucked for a bit hey LOL

at least you dont mind showing that you know f@#k all about world news because you spout off about a country being commie that hasn't been for thirty odd years LOL
any of your claims of massacres, rapes , torture, bombing of civilian areas, killing of children etc etc etc l'm sure will be dealt with when this conflict is over, but using it now as an emotional weapon to try and squeeze more arms and money out of the world that you cannot guarantee is going where it is supposed too is just plain Ludacris, by the way the Russians are very thankful for the arms
it would be nice if you put up a link showing your sources spike, but you are entitled to your opinion

since you didn't pay attention to Patrick Lancaster maybe you will like Scott Ritter better
Scott gives his credentials at the start of the video

FYI, this was released in 2018. Azov (major neo-nazi paramilitary) was incorporated into the national guard in 2015. When the head of the army says the nazi volunteers are no longer there, he's right. But thats because they are no longer volunteers but official national guard members. In other words, they got a promotion
out of control: Ukraine's rogue militias

Fkn hell you are talking so much bullshit...an education from you..I doubt it judging from your last two posts...check I said Russia isn't communist ...but basically a dictatorship that is rapidly heading back to how the government was run under the hard line soviet leaders....and I honestly cant be bothered spending fruitless time responding to the other bullshit you have put on...so yeah as far as I am concerned you are still talking out of your arsehole....I think you are the one in need of some education...

 

[BSO Dave]

Appeasing dictators’ territorial aspirations rarely seems to work out well. Our isolationism in the late thirties cost us dearly in blood and treasure in the forties.

Fair enough.. But, do you genuinely think that the USA's isolationist stance prior to entering into WW2 is a parallel comparison to the ideology of refraining from escalating to a hot war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine? As I recall, the proposition of the USA entering into the war in Europe was vastly unpopular among most Americans until Pearl Harbor.. One could argue that we really don't know if our isolationist position prior to entering WW2 would have ultimately been in the USA's best interest or not... Japan made that decision for us, and as you said, the rest is history..

I think like most Americans, I have a deep compassion for the innocent Ukraine people that are suffering this Russian invasion. I don't think there is any American who is not emotionally affected by the images of war and the suffering of innocents. However, I also think it's completely fair to ask the question why is aiding Ukraine either with defensive, offensive, or even boots-on-the-ground support in the best interest of the American people? Maybe it is? I have just yet to hear it explained in plain and definitive terms..

I have listened to all the generals and other "foreign policy experts" that have appeared on all the MSM outlets as well as Tucker Carlson way before the invasion and up to this day with an open mind trying to become better informed.. You can draw your own conclusions on TC's personal opinions, but in fairness, I have never heard him inject his personal opinions. What I have heard him ask of these experts repeatedly is the same question over and over which is "Why is it in the USA's best interest to get involved in Ukraine". And, quite honestly, to date I have yet to hear any of these experts explain in clear and certain terms our reasoning and justification for providing weapons and risking war for a country who is not a NATO member or sworn ally of the USA.

TC has repeatedly asked the experts if the atrocities being committed by the Russians are the reasoning, and that the principle of morality alone is justification enough to risk a hot war between the USA and Russia.. Yet, none of them has openly committed to this or any other clear specific set of reasons as a justification beyond the generality that it is in the USA's best interest to support Ukraine militarily.

So, what have I missed? Maybe you can explain to me the specific reasoning and strategic goals for US involvement that justifies the risks of escalating into a hot war with Russia? Please believe me when I tell you that I am not being deliberately factious. I genuinely would like to know the reasoning. If we are willing to risk war over genocide of a foreign people, fine... If we are willing to risk war over protecting the borders of another country we have no official allegiance to, fine... If there is some other unrevealed strategic objective we are defending, fine... I think most Americans would just like to hear the reasons in certain terms before more flag-draped coffins start arriving back in the USA on C-130s..

 

[Randy F]

 

[VertigoBE]

Just in: Macron keeps the presidency of France with 58% of the vote, against 42% for Le Pen.

Good news for France, good news for Europe, good news for the rest of the world.

 

[PARA45]

I’d would like to know, why we continue to spend our precious Tax Dollars to help Ukraine, and dig ourself deeper into more debt, while the rest of Europe contributes Pennies to our Dollars.

 

[WAB]

I’d would like to know, why we continue to spend our precious Tax Dollars to help Ukraine, and dig ourself deeper into more debt, while the rest of Europe contributes Pennies to our Dollars.

You raise a valid point, not that we should spend less, but others, particularly those in the path of Russian aspirations, need to step up to the plate in a bigger way.

 

[Red Leg]

Fair enough.. But, do you genuinely think that the USA's isolationist stance prior to entering into WW2 is a parallel comparison to the ideology of refraining from escalating to a hot war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine? As I recall, the proposition of the USA entering into the war in Europe was vastly unpopular among most Americans until Pearl Harbor.. One could argue that we really don't know if our isolationist position prior to entering WW2 would have ultimately been in the USA's best interest or not... Japan made that decision for us, and as you said, the rest is history..

I think like most Americans, I have a deep compassion for the innocent Ukraine people that are suffering this Russian invasion. I don't think there is any American who is not emotionally affected by the images of war and the suffering of innocents. However, I also think it's completely fair to ask the question why is aiding Ukraine either with defensive, offensive, or even boots-on-the-ground support in the best interest of the American people? Maybe it is? I have just yet to hear it explained in plain and definitive terms..

I have listened to all the generals and other "foreign policy experts" that have appeared on all the MSM outlets as well as Tucker Carlson way before the invasion and up to this day with an open mind trying to become better informed.. You can draw your own conclusions on TC's personal opinions, but in fairness, I have never heard him inject his personal opinions. What I have heard him ask of these experts repeatedly is the same question over and over which is "Why is it in the USA's best interest to get involved in Ukraine". And, quite honestly, to date I have yet to hear any of these experts explain in clear and certain terms our reasoning and justification for providing weapons and risking war for a country who is not a NATO member or sworn ally of the USA.

TC has repeatedly asked the experts if the atrocities being committed by the Russians are the reasoning, and that the principle of morality alone is justification enough to risk a hot war between the USA and Russia.. Yet, none of them has openly committed to this or any other clear specific set of reasons as a justification beyond the generality that it is in the USA's best interest to support Ukraine militarily.

So, what have I missed? Maybe you can explain to me the specific reasoning and strategic goals for US involvement that justifies the risks of escalating into a hot war with Russia? Please believe me when I tell you that I am not being deliberately factious. I genuinely would like to know the reasoning. If we are willing to risk war over genocide of a foreign people, fine... If we are willing to risk war over protecting the borders of another country we have no official allegiance to, fine... If there is some other unrevealed strategic objective we are defending, fine... I think most Americans would just like to hear the reasons in certain terms before more flag-draped coffins start arriving back in the USA on C-130s..

I am typing on an iPad in Barcelona rather than a keyboard so I will have to keep this brief.

Whether or not we, and by that I mean NATO, should support Ukraine is certainly worthy of debate. To me, it is crystal clear that is in our national interests to limit Russian imperial aspirations. I frankly find it impossible to understand how any educated person would think differently. But a few do.

Carlson has tended to use two arguments - one - we shouldn’t worry about Ukraine’s border if we won’t defend our own, or two - Ukraine is unworthy of being helped. I dismiss the first out of hand because it is a blatant false equivalency. Tucker is clearly smart enough to know that but it supports the political opinion he is trying to convey. (No he doesn’t merely ask questions). The second is a more legitimate concern. However, I think Ukraine’s independent future is a better outcome, regardless of its eventual government, than meek acceptance of Russian ascendency over Central Europe.

Twice during the last century the United States tried to convince itself that Europe’s problems were not it’s own. And twice within a generation we were dragged into massive wars. The second, in particular, should never have happened. Had the democracies been united against German expansion into Czechoslovakia in 1938, the Nazi war machine would have been stopped in it’s infancy. We did nothing - and at great eventual cost.

Our economic empire is far more intertwined with Europe today than at any point in the last century. It’s stability and our free access to capitalist markets could not be a more critical national interest. It is why NATO, under American leadership has retained its critical importance to this country. Again, I can not understand how any educated person doesn’t understand that. It is probably the one policy issue that frustrated me most about Trump (though I frankly think most of his posturing was a negotiating gambit with respect to European defense spending).

Finally, I am more than willing to debate the merits of the issue. What I have no time or patience for is citing mouthpieces for Putin and his propaganda network. Macgregor, with whom I served and revile, is one of the worst because he has been given an aura or respectability by Carlson. You will be hard pressed to find a contemporary who wore the uniform who feels differently than me. Clowns like Ritter et al somehow seem to only find traction on the nuttier fringes of the internet.

Should Europe play a greater role in providing for its collective defense - absolutely. It would appear the scales are at least falling from Germany’s eyes. I am also glad to see France taking a more active part in NATO. But none of that changes our fundamental critical national interests in the region. We should do everything in our considerable power to forward those interests before we are forced to defend them in a far more dangerous context.

 

[Newboomer]

Fair enough.. But, do you genuinely think that the USA's isolationist stance prior to entering into WW2 is a parallel comparison to the ideology of refraining from escalating to a hot war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine? As I recall, the proposition of the USA entering into the war in Europe was vastly unpopular among most Americans until Pearl Harbor.. One could argue that we really don't know if our isolationist position prior to entering WW2 would have ultimately been in the USA's best interest or not... Japan made that decision for us, and as you said, the rest is history..

I think like most Americans, I have a deep compassion for the innocent Ukraine people that are suffering this Russian invasion. I don't think there is any American who is not emotionally affected by the images of war and the suffering of innocents. However, I also think it's completely fair to ask the question why is aiding Ukraine either with defensive, offensive, or even boots-on-the-ground support in the best interest of the American people? Maybe it is? I have just yet to hear it explained in plain and definitive terms..

I have listened to all the generals and other "foreign policy experts" that have appeared on all the MSM outlets as well as Tucker Carlson way before the invasion and up to this day with an open mind trying to become better informed.. You can draw your own conclusions on TC's personal opinions, but in fairness, I have never heard him inject his personal opinions. What I have heard him ask of these experts repeatedly is the same question over and over which is "Why is it in the USA's best interest to get involved in Ukraine". And, quite honestly, to date I have yet to hear any of these experts explain in clear and certain terms our reasoning and justification for providing weapons and risking war for a country who is not a NATO member or sworn ally of the USA.

TC has repeatedly asked the experts if the atrocities being committed by the Russians are the reasoning, and that the principle of morality alone is justification enough to risk a hot war between the USA and Russia.. Yet, none of them has openly committed to this or any other clear specific set of reasons as a justification beyond the generality that it is in the USA's best interest to support Ukraine militarily.

So, what have I missed? Maybe you can explain to me the specific reasoning and strategic goals for US involvement that justifies the risks of escalating into a hot war with Russia? Please believe me when I tell you that I am not being deliberately factious. I genuinely would like to know the reasoning. If we are willing to risk war over genocide of a foreign people, fine... If we are willing to risk war over protecting the borders of another country we have no official allegiance to, fine... If there is some other unrevealed strategic objective we are defending, fine... I think most Americans would just like to hear the reasons in certain terms before more flag-draped coffins start arriving back in the USA on C-130s..

`Definition of an expert: an ex is a has been and a spurt is a drip under pressure. I listen to and read a lot of the reports of the socalled experts and I don't see any clearcut rhyme nor reason for us to have any connection to the war in Ukraine. That is between Ukraine and Russia. There is no benefit to us that I can fathom. It seems to be more negative. Ukraine is not a NATO or UN country, therefore, the US has no obvious vested interest.

 

[mdwest]

Ukraine is not a NATO or UN country, therefore, the US has no obvious vested interest.

Ummm… Ukraine is a founding member of the UN… then while part of the Soviet Union was represented by the USSR… then when Ukraine separated from the USSR in 1991 they retained their original 1945 seat…

They have been part of the UN since it’s inception..

That that I believe the US has any duty or obligation to all UN members… as far as I’m concerned most UN nations can burst into flames and I wouldn’t care… and the UN itself can suck start a Glock…

 

[Jfet]

Our isolationism in the late thirties cost us dearly in blood and treasure in the forties.

We cannot make that mistake again. We have to be engaged with the rest of the world all the time. Preferably, that would be through commerce and negotiations. There also has to be the willingness to use other methods as well. Being a world leader is kind of like being a professional dog trainer. You still have to go shovel dog shit.

 

[wesheltonj]

While I agree, Russia has to be kept in check, I don't see the need to get into a shooting war with Russia at least for now. Europe has a long history of Border wars. Frankly, we don't need WW3. Seeing the Russian performance in Ukraine, we (NATO) would blow thru territory in short order, which I am afraid would require Russia using Nuclear weapons to keep from losing. We had our opportunity in WW2, but Roosevelt passed.

I really don't get why Russia is so hell bent on a warm water port in the Black Sea, the only way out is thru Turkey, a NATO country which could shut access any time.

Finland and Sweden are both wanting into NATO and don't have the corruption problems of Ukraine. Russia is already chest pounding what will happen of they join. I think most of NATO would be welcoming them into the Alliance.

Finland has a long history and border with Russia and its understandable why they would want to join. Sweden on the other hand has been a neutral for years.

Personally, China and Taiwan are more pressing for the USA. I suspect China would be more then happy for the USA to be tied down fighting Russia which would give them the opportunity to roll over Taiwan. Just like COVID gave them cover on Hong Kong and Macau. And the CCP is taking notes.

 

[Newboomer]

Both Russia and Ukraine (by proxy as part of the USSR) being UN members seems a sort of oxymoron considering the predicament they are in, fighting each other. If the UN is supposed to protect members, which side do they take? Russia or Ukraine? Or is Ukraine a bona fide member? Or will that useless mob sit on it's hip pockets and do nothing as usual?

 

[Pheroze]

If the west capitulated on Ukraine don't you think China would be emboldened on Taiwan? There's more to this than Ukraine. I think it is naive to think this is an isolated situation. This is a good message to send. Otherwise you would have a war you don't want but this time you would be bringing home your own dead. There is zero examples in history where capitulation obtained peace. Never bet against a streak.

 

[BSO Dave]

@Red Leg ,

I do sincerely appreciate your reply, and always respect your opinions. However, with all due respect on this topic, your answer is more or less the same generalization that I have already heard in that it is in our national economic interest to have stability the the region. Okay fine.. I agree in principle, but at what cost, and to what extent do we defend Ukraine? Boots on the ground and American soldiers dying? What exactly then is our intended result, and how will any outcome other than total Russian defeat be favorable or create stability because I have yet to hear that plan revealed by any of these generals?

Let's assume an escalation of US involvement has a profound affect on Russian forces in Ukraine. What happens when they are on the ropes at our hands?.. Are we also betting Putin would never be foolish or desperate enough to seek nuclear options? And, during all of this China sits by as a spectator? That is a hell of a lot to risk based on speculation of what Russia may or may not do next after Ukraine. I am not saying that all this it may not be necessary or inevitable. I just don't think most of those clamoring for escalation understand the price that may have to be paid by the American people figuratively and literally.

As of right now, I just don't see or hear the "at any cost" support for those extremes coming from the vast majority of the American population regardless of their political ideologies. It's hard to sell a war based on the "stability in Europe is in our best interest" argument when we have record high inflation along with a dozen other crises right here at home that started on January 20th, 2021, long before Russia invaded Ukraine.

Again, I'm no foreign policy expert.. Just a patriotic, taxpaying American asking what I think are very fair and valid questions before we send our soldiers to die once again on foreign soil even though I guess I lack the education you infer is necessary to grasp all of this..

Enjoy your European trip!

 

[BSO Dave]

f the west capitulated on Ukraine don't you think China would be emboldened on Taiwan?

If this is directed at my comments, I never suggested that the "west" capitulate... I only question the justification for escalating the USA's involvement there beyond defensive and humanitarian support. I honestly don't care what NATO, Europe, or the rest world for that matter does. I do care about what happens to the USA. We are always the one paying exponentially the most in dollars and blood in these wars..

I do agree that there is more to this beyond Ukraine.. That's what concerns me the most.. And, if we did escalate to the point of a hot war with Russia, we won't have to speculate what China does next..

 

[Pheroze]

If this is directed at my comments,

Not specifically. I was only chiming in on the general idea that it doesn't involve us. I think this war is actually a good way for the west to show its teeth without actually engaging.

 

[BSO Dave]

I was only chiming in on the general idea that it doesn't involve us. I think this war is actually a good way for the west to show its teeth without actually engaging.

I agree, but sadly that ship never left port.. The "West" had the chance to show it's teeth pre-invasion with a commitment in defensive weaponry to Ukraine and strategic troop placement in the region. That collective show of weakness by the USA and Europe had the exact opposite affect emboldening Putin..

 

[Pheroze]

I agree, but sadly that ship never left port.. The "West" had the chance to show it's teeth pre-invasion with a commitment in defensive weaponry to Ukraine and strategic troop placement in the region. That collective show of weakness by the USA and Europe had the exact opposite affect emboldening Putin..

Completely agree. The entire "let's trade with repressive governments because we get cheap stuff" trend has led to its inevitable blood letting.

I do think rallying behind Ukraine is good also because it is good to believe in something. They are a flawed democratic government. But who isn't? If our society doesn't believe any democracy is worth fighting for, and we don't have God anymore, and we don't believe in authority and we don't believe in....it becomes a very selfish society. I have no issue rallying behind this cause as it is an antidote to the last 10 years of crap.