sherpa

You ask stupid questions, based on idiotic premises, then tell someone what an acceptable response is? The US, nor any other country for that matter, does not have the ability to dictate internal politics of other countries. Hong Kong was turned over in 1997. The US, nor any US president, and there have been a few since then and have watched this. You can't go to war every time sovereign nations do what they do. Let me ask you a few things, and unlike you, I won't tell you how to answer. Have you ever been to Russia or China? Since the US doesn't control either, does it make sense to you to waste a generation of our youth to try to force something you can't control and really have no standing, (a legal term, but appropriate), in? Last, do you really think this crack team of Biden and Harris with a Dem Senate and House would have caused events in the China/Hong Kong dynamic to have progressed differently?

What I "heard" was in 1898, (not 1998), Great Britain agreed to turn over Hong Kong to China in 99 years. That was done in 1997. Your next claim, which would make about as much sense, is the Trump turned over Jesus to the Roman rulers in Jerusalem. I can't stand Trump, but you sure bring discredit to yourself when you offer ridiculous assertions.

I thought Hong Kong was turned over to China by the British in 1997.

What Putin may have thought a couple months ago has been demolished. He has become an international pariah, completely by his own doing, and it is getting worse internationally and domestically with every day.

I really wish there was an acknowledgement of what has been US policy and proposed tactics. A no fly zone is an act of war. It involves US air capability engaged against Russian Air Forces, and under the umbrella of Russian SAM systems. We are going to shoot at them. They are going to shoot at us and them, 'cause they don't do adversary id as important. Drones? We either involve these little kamikaze drones or we use our more capably platforms, which are extremely limited numbers. We would never allow Ukrainians to operate them, and operating our capable drones is really complicated, and again, an act of war. Patriot missile batteries? Again, it takes US forces to operate them. Once again, against the stated policy of not getting US troops involved in this. There seems to be a view from some folks that you simply give stuff to the Ukraine and they operate them, although it takes years of training and huge support to operate these things efficiently.

I think he definitely thought this would be a short term military effort, and that is proven by food, fuel and clothing supplies to his attack force, as well as never fully employing his significant air capability. He might not want Russia to be perceived as weak, but that ship has sailed. I saw something today that if the status quo extends, the Russian economy will decline 50% year over year. If that happened anywhere else as the result of a voluntary military fiasco there would be blood in the streets. His invasion has exposed a number of things, and already resulted in domestic cracks evidenced by protests, house arrests of planners and firing significant leadership, as well as unification of NATO and tempting others to join. He is screwed, but because he has what he has in reserve, he must be provided a way out, unless there is some kind of internal military revolt.

That's why, as unpalatable as it seems, he has to be allowed to get out without complete defeat. That's the unfortunate thing about someone who is capable of a scorched earth program. The single best thing that can get this over is the continued deterioration on the Russian domestic front.

I think they're kind of useless, and I only read a few just before the draft. Most folks choose players that they view as need. Since the Bills philosophy is best player available, it makes little sense. My view this year is that the Bills don't have roster room for all their picks, so they package a deal for a trade up. No point in guessing where, for how much or for whom.

I get it. You're hopelessly conflicted.

The object is to stop the killing and get to a ceasefire. Labelling someone a war criminal while the confrontation goes on doesn't move that ball forward. Stop he killing and worry about prosecution later.

Which is one more that exists that supports Putin, no matter the idiotic claims.

Just a fly on the wall here, but is there a basic reality that rational people here can agree on? Thinking that getting into a full blown WWIII is a really bad idea, and not supporting measures that would make that more likely is not "supporting" Putin. If folks who think that getting the US and NATO, and it would be mostly the US, into a shooting war against the Russians on their border is a good idea, or would ever save lives is a good idea, that idea is madness. Horrible as it is, people are going to die in this. Multiply that by hundreds if we went after the Russians.

There is quite a difference between the two. The Ukrainians are demonstrating intense national pride and defending themselves in every manner possible, and doing a pretty good job getting their story out. That gets peoples attention and support. The Afghan military, if ever there was such a thing, never did that. I was watching a youtube from a guy whose opinion I hold in high regard. He went on a special forces mission in Afghanistan with US troops. Long story short, they were with Afghan troops and those folks were asked, "why don't you fight these guys," and the response was, "That's the US' job." They simply didn't care. They remain a tribal culture with a "next dollar gets my allegiance," attitude, and no national identity to point to or rally around. Their light speed collapse proved that. Loss of life is sad on any scale, but it is human nature to support people you identify with, and I'm not talking race or culture.

Post 9/11 issues regarding this is not something I have ever addressed, nor would.

I don't care about who determines what a "war" is, or what that definition involves. I simply responded to an assertion that insurance companies would be involved in this Ukrainian thing, and I pointed out the war clause which indemnifies them. 9/11, and the way it was handled is a completely different subject, and not something I brought up.

Not "often true." Absolutely true. I don't know what insurance companies view as a "war," but I'm quite certain that any terrorist action has not been identified as a "war," and there have been hundreds. Ergo 9/11 is a red herring.

I never said anything of that sort. I am not an insurance adjuster and I am saying that what Russia is doing in the Ukraine is absolutely a war, by any definition. You brought 9/11 into this, and I have no idea what the definition they use is, but I guarantee that this Russia thing fits it.

Maybe you don't understand what I said. The Russian invasion of the Ukraine is the very definition of war. 9/11 was not. You suggested the linkage between the two. I denied it. 9/11 wasn't anything like what the Russians did.

I'll leave the nuance of what is and isn't a war as defined in a war clause, but I am reasonably certain that one sovereign country launching an invasion against a neighboring sovereign involving all its' military ex navy meets the definition. That aint 9/11

The deterioration of Germany's military capability is stunning. Recently, not one of their transport aircraft were mission ready. Their fighter aircraft are in equally bad condition, at one point they had about 28 mission ready. Tanks and ground forces-same thing. This has been a wake up call for them. The "war" portion went really well. The "peace" portion was horrible, and the Russians have no apparent ability to experience a greater outcome in Ukraine.

Insurance companies are indemnified by a war clause that eliminates their exposure during war.

There is no reason to send US submarines into Russian waters, and by the way, all US submarines are nuclear powered. I get that there are people here who think trump is kind of special. He is a total idiot regarding military issues, and it would be best for all involved if he departed the political environment and simply faded away.

Positioning them a vast difference from using one.

I am not stating anything other than my view. Chemical or bio would have a similar but not quite response as a nuc. It is a bit easier to hide those. Using a nuc changes the entire calculus. It hasn't been done wince WWII, and it isn't at all necessary or even desirous to achieve his objectives. I'm not going to speculate on a response to delivering a nuc to a Ukrainian city, since I think it is an unreasonable suggestion, but it would be the end of his regime.

He isn't effectively using a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons have long lasting radiation effects, and he doesn't need to. If he did, that would be the end of this Russian regime. Yes, a retaliatory nuclear strike is worth it, if they launched a nuc against a US target. This aint that.