Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[Coffeesforclosers]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

As members of NATO, we don't have the option to avoid a response if Poland's sovereignty is threatened by some stupid Russian adventure, which they have no conventional warfare ability to successfully conclude.

 

Of course you're right legally, not to mention morally and ethically.

 

But I have a feeling like your about to get an education on how the America First! Agenda doesn't really care about the Constitution as it relates to ratified treaties. 

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

 

Of course you're right legally, not to mention morally and ethically.

 

But I have a feeling like your about to get an education on how the America First! Agenda doesn't really care about the Constitution as it relates to ratified treaties. 

 

When?  In 2 years when the Dems lose the Presidency and probably the Senate?  Until then it's not "America First" it's "Ukrained First/America Last."

[BillStime]

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

When?  In 2 years when the Dems lose the Presidency and probably the Senate?  Until then it's not "America First" it's "Ukrained First/America Last."

 

 

Another doozy from "Doc"

 

This will haunt you, too.

 

Idiots...

 

 

 

[Coffeesforclosers]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

When?  In 2 years when the Dems lose the Presidency and probably the Senate?  Until then it's not "America First" it's "Ukrained First/America Last."

 

Really what we should be asking is why the hell this has to be an "either/or" proposition.  I'm not against building the wall, and I'm not against helping Ukraine stack Russians up like logs. But my two parties are for some reason... 

[sherpa]

4 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

There's always a choice.  We can refuse to fulfill the terms of the agreement if something isn't to our liking.  Otherwise, that implies the Constitutional powers of Congress to declare war have been transferred though some arrangement to NATO.  

 

If we were to renege on our NATO commitments, that would be the starting gun to challenge everything and every agreement, de facto, making them worthless.

Dishonoring commitments is not a reasonable choice, and would be catastrophic, especially in this case, where you have the underpinning agreement that resulted from Soviet expansion attempts post WWII.

The new Russia has no ability to threaten NATO conventionally.

None. 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

Really what we should be asking is why the hell this has to be an "either/or" proposition.  I'm not against building the wall, and I'm not against helping Ukraine stack Russians up like logs. But my two parties are for some reason... 

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with your assertion that MAGA will a) have anything to do with what would happen if Russia were stupid enough to invade Poland within the next 2 years and b) why you think anyone would support not helping a fellow NATO nation.  We just got out of forever wars and have entered into another by proxy, for a non-NATO member.

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

When?  In 2 years when the Dems lose the Presidency and probably the Senate?  Until then it's not "America First" it's "Ukrained First/America Last."

We spent the decades after WWII establishing an international order that put us on top. We set the rules and for the most part, we ran the show.

 

Yes, that involves supporting foreign countries because doing so maintains the international structure with us on top. And yes, there were plenty of mistakes made, but by and large, the US has dominated the global scene. 
 

Now we have the most recent version of “America First” (look up the previous versions. History doesn’t repeat but it definitely rhymes). 
 

Somehow, these people believe that abandoning the system that puts us on top in favor of isolationism and rebuffing our allies will somehow benefit us. 
 

Instead, all it will do is create a giant power vacuum that will be filled by whoever can exercise more soft power: Europe or China. Who are you betting on in that scenario?

 

Ukraine may not be an ally, but it’s definitely in our strategic interest to completely demolish the army of one of our adversaries at the cost of a fraction of our military budget without risking US troops. It also sets a deterrent against China in Taiwan. 
 

Supporting Ukraine benefits the US. It is strengthening our place as the global leader. Abandoning them will be a tremendous win for Russia, China, and those wishing to diminish the US. 

[sherpa]

Just to be clear, the attempt of the previous administration to pry bar other NATO allies to live up to their agreements, which they were woefully and now fully exposed as negligent in not doing, had nothing to do with abandoning our agreements or ending our participation.

 

Both NATO and the UN need to live up to promises and stop relying on the US to fund and back up systems that are not supported by signatories.

 

The UN is fatally flawed, and an exposed fraud.

NATO might be put to the test.

[Coffeesforclosers]

53 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with your assertion that MAGA will a) have anything to do with what would happen if Russia were stupid enough to invade Poland within the next 2 years and b) why you think anyone would support not helping a fellow NATO nation.  We just got out of forever wars and have entered into another by proxy, for a non-NATO member.

 

Read Sherpa's conversation with All Pro. It's proceeding exactly how I expected it would. 

[Tenhigh]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

It’s clear that many of the war mongers on here have never played the game of Risk. After getting your armies pounded by many of the rolls of the dice on one front, you quickly learn that attacking another one is a terrible strategy for anything other than a quick exit from the table. 

The people who call Sorry the "Game of Hurt Feelings" have never played Risk either.  I nearly split up with my wife over it during a blizzard 20 years ago.  It gets ugly.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

28 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

 

Read Sherpa's conversation with All Pro. It's proceeding exactly how I expected it would. 

I'd ask all the US Empire advocates and supporters to examine their belief in some core guiding principal of an altruistic moral and ethical duty of self-sacrifice to defend the weak and powerless from evil.  I suggest that's nonsense.  I suggest the Empire's intentions are defined purely from a perspective of self-interest.  I suggest everything that comes out of Washington, including the unlimited funding and weapons flows to Ukraine is done from a perspective of self-interest.  It's not out of love for Ukrainian sovereignty or democracy.  I suggest the Empire's focus on self-interest is no different than the focus on self-interest of some America First philosophy some perceive as "isolationism".  But self-interest and a what's in it for me attitude might be selfish, but it is hardly synonymous with isolationism.  It's a methodology of assessing whether or not I want to get involved different from that used by the Washington Empire crowd.  I suggest the only difference is the specific self-interests are different.

 

I'd ask that posters consider the US empire has been in business for about 78 years since the end of WW2.  Assuming the role of rule maker and relegating almost every other country coming along for the ride as a rule taker.  Using enforcement mechanisms of political, social, economic, or military nature.  Doing some things wrong but most things right during that time.  American has accomplished many great things and its leadership has produced a prosperity never before seen on the Earth.  But lately almost the entire focus is to hang on to power and stop anybody else from taking a seat at the big-boy's table.  Nobody hangs on to power forever and Empires rise and fall.  It's the cycle of history.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

We spent the decades after WWII establishing an international order that put us on top. We set the rules and for the most part, we ran the show.

 

Yes, that involves supporting foreign countries because doing so maintains the international structure with us on top. And yes, there were plenty of mistakes made, but by and large, the US has dominated the global scene. 
 

Now we have the most recent version of “America First” (look up the previous versions. History doesn’t repeat but it definitely rhymes). 
 

Somehow, these people believe that abandoning the system that puts us on top in favor of isolationism and rebuffing our allies will somehow benefit us. 
 

Instead, all it will do is create a giant power vacuum that will be filled by whoever can exercise more soft power: Europe or China. Who are you betting on in that scenario?

 

Ukraine may not be an ally, but it’s definitely in our strategic interest to completely demolish the army of one of our adversaries at the cost of a fraction of our military budget without risking US troops. It also sets a deterrent against China in Taiwan. 
 

Supporting Ukraine benefits the US. It is strengthening our place as the global leader. Abandoning them will be a tremendous win for Russia, China, and those wishing to diminish the US. 

 

No allies have been or will be rebuffed.  See sherpa's posts.

 

48 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

Read Sherpa's conversation with All Pro. It's proceeding exactly how I expected it would. 

 

All-Pro said "if something isn't to our liking."  I think that Poland being attacked by Russia wouldn't fall under that.

[Tiberius]

15 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant for Vladimir Putin

  It is also tough to imagine anyone trying to broker a peace deal with someone indicted by the ICC

 

 

 

.

We announced prosecutions of the Nazi leaders before Japan had surrendered. The Japanese did not want the emperor prosecuted (or he didn't want to be) and therefore fought on. Did the announcement of prosecutions make dropping atomic bombs more likely? I've never seen scholarship on the issue but it is an interesting question and the United States was demanding unconditional surrender 

 

[sherpa]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

We announced prosecutions of the Nazi leaders before Japan had surrendered. The Japanese did not want the emperor prosecuted (or he didn't want to be) and therefore fought on. Did the announcement of prosecutions make dropping atomic bombs more likely? I've never seen scholarship on the issue but it is an interesting question and the United States was demanding unconditional surrender 

 

 

The decision to use the atomic bomb was made because the US didn't want a land invasion of the Japanese homeland, especially after Okinawa.

Such an invasion would have been much larger than D day.

Millions would have been killed, especially since the US was in possession of Japan's plan to use every single human in defense.

The Japanese wanted the Emperor to remain seated, and the US relented, because occupation and recovery was made much easier by doing so, but in meetings with MacArthur, the rules of engagement were laid out.

 

 

"Fly Boys," and "The Fall of Japan," are great books that go into good detail on this.

Edited March 18, 2023 by sherpa

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

The decision to use the atomic bomb was made because the US didn't want a land invasion of the Japanese homeland, especially after Okinawa.

Such an invasion would have been much larger than D day.

Millions would have been killed, especially since the US was in possession of Japan's plan to use every single human in defense.

The Japanese wanted the Emperor to remain seated, and the US relented, because occupation and recovery was made much easier by doing so, but in meetings with MacArthur, the rules of engagement were laid out.

 

 

"Fly Boys" is a great book that goes into good detail or this.

No, you did not understand what I wrote 

On 3/16/2023 at 11:37 AM, sherpa said:

 

Insanity.

See how much he wants to do this without AWACS, US tanker capability, US electronic counter measures support and a host of other things that truly determine success.

 

But, I see his call sign is "Two Dogs."

That is a call sign with historic significance, and is funny.

I trust his opinion. I do not in any way at all trust anything you say. 

 

 

On 3/16/2023 at 11:37 AM, sherpa said:

 

Insanity.

See how much he wants to do this without AWACS, US tanker capability, US electronic counter measures support and a host of other things that truly determine success.

 

But, I see his call sign is "Two Dogs."

That is a call sign with historic significance, and is funny.

I trust his opinion. I do not in any way at all trust anything you say. 

 

 

[sherpa]

39 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No, you did not understand what I wrote 

I trust his opinion. I do not in any way at all trust anything you say. 

 

 

I trust his opinion. I do not in any way at all trust anything you say. 

 

 

 

Great.

There isn't a single thing on earth I care less about than what you think.

 

Anyway, some goof expressing false bravado with a stupid picture included, which completely disregards what created his confidence in the first place, is what publicity hounds do.

 

And by the way, as far as "trust," as you recall and did not respond to, when you questioned my background and I offered to donate any sum of money to a charity of your choice if you I couldn't prove it, you didn't take the challenge.

Your view of my "trustworthiness" is not something I will ever be concerned with.

[SCBills]

The media is going in on the responses Trump and DeSantis gave Tucker … as support for this new forever war is beginning to slip, it will be interesting to look back at their answers a year from now - in the middle of a presidential campaign - and see how they stack up against our newest MIC-appointed POTUS. 

[Tiberius]

 

[Tiberius]

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

On 3/17/2023 at 9:25 AM, SoCal Deek said:

It’s clear that many of the war mongers on here have never played the game of Risk. After getting your armies pounded by many of the rolls of the dice on one front, you quickly learn that attacking another one is a terrible strategy for anything other than a quick exit from the table. 

Yeah, Putin is losing this Risk game badly  and doesn't care about his armies.  He continues to roll the dice. As I recall, in Risk, you can no longer attack when there's only on army left in your country.  Putin isn't abiding the rules.  And, as in the game, it makes Russia vulnerable.  so there's that...

Edited March 19, 2023 by redtail hawk