Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lawman]

Aggressive Russian assassinations across Europe since 2000 which were definitely justified by NATO’s existence, and not because a former KGB member, Soviet state dreamer came into power: http:// https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-11-22/putin-s-assassination-targets-revealed-in-declassified-memo

He’s not even going to pretend to acknowledge all the “mystery fires” and sabotage or the no kidding Russians that have been arrested carrying out actions in Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

41 minutes ago, Lawman said:

“Mystery Fires!”

 

 

[Stoker]

8 hours ago, FourFans said:

Trying to imagine what Bashi's line would have been in 1939

Poland was part of the German Reich only twenty years ago! The Allies have really put us in a threatened position by surrounding us with an alliance, the Little Entente! Many of the people there really vibe with us ethnically and not the Poles! Poland is really just a corrupt autocratic state anyways. Besides, there's no way Britain/France can help Poland, so it's a waste trying.

[FourFans]

7 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Because I study history.  How about your line in 1948-9 as Korea was getting tee'd up.  Or perhaps the early 1960's with Vietnam?  Hell, what was your stance in the 1980's as were arming the Iraqi's AND Iranians?

Bottom line in ALL these cases: When America makes an international promise and then doesn't back it up with action, we lose big when we have to clean up the mess later.  We also lose allies. Key allies. It would be very nice if our leadership would THINK before making promises.

Our history has proven that it costs far more lives to back out of a promise now and have to fix it later than it does to stick to our word and put our munitions and young men where our politicians' mouths led us.  It's sucks, but it's true.

Edited November 26 by FourFans

[jice]

8 hours ago, bfargin said:

Another dumbass comparison to WWII. Seriously?

 

Even if your comparison was valid, none of our plans/thoughts could be worse than fdr’s. He completely had his head buried deep on pretty much any and all important policy positions (except got to extend and strengthen a depression). We didn’t do anything for years during WWII. If I remember correctly after Dec 7, 1941 we declared war on Japan but not Germany. Germany ended up declaring war on us!

Except for lend lease (‘41), tax incentives for companies producing war goods (‘39,) a peacetime draft (‘40), a government reorganization to facilitate a war footing (‘39), civilian pilot training program (‘39), embargoes against Japan (‘40), freezing Japanese assets (‘41), training Brit pilots in Texas (‘41)… the list goes on and on.

[Lawman]

Except for lend lease (‘41), tax incentives for companies producing war goods (‘39,) a peacetime draft (‘40), a government reorganization to facilitate a war footing (‘39), civilian pilot training program (‘39), embargoes against Japan (‘40), freezing Japanese assets (‘41), training Brit pilots in Texas (‘41)… the list goes on and on.

I was gonna say the better comparison would be the jackasses stateside telling us that war over there wasn’t our problem and what Germany was doing wasn’t really that bad.

Luckily some of our grandfathers didn’t gargle Reddit level stupid coming out of a coordinated IA campaign.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, FourFans said:

Because I study history.  How about your line in 1948-9 as Korea was getting tee'd up.  Or perhaps the early 1960's with Vietnam?  Hell, what was your stance in the 1980's as were arming the Iraqi's AND Iranians?

.

is your argument all of those were successes? i wouldn't have gotten involved in any of those

[FourFans]

12 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

is your argument all of those were successes? i wouldn't have gotten involved in any of those

Obviously they weren't successes, but we kept our word when we said we would support our allies, for good or ill.  You would have chosen to back out on promises that we'd made.  If Europe saw us commit support, and then back out of Korea and Vietnam (both promises we made to those countries), do you think they would have trusted us to back up our commitments to NATO?  It's coherency that we must have.  If we make a promise, we have to keep it.  You apparently would be fine committing support and then not providing it.  

I'm not arguing the correctness of the commitment, I'm arguing the integrity of our nation in keeping it's word.  Our political leaders have certainly committed us in places we aught not be.  But once committed we CANNOT turn back on our word.

[BashiChuni]

5 minutes ago, FourFans said:

Obviously they weren't successes, but we kept our word when we said we would support our allies, for good or ill.  You would have chosen to back out on promises that we'd made.  If Europe saw us commit support, and then back out of Korea and Vietnam (both promises we made to those countries), do you think they would have trusted us to back up our commitments to NATO?  It's coherency that we must have.  If we make a promise, we have to keep it.  You apparently would be fine committing support and then not providing it.  

I'm not arguing the correctness of the commitment, I'm arguing the integrity of our nation in keeping it's word.  Our political leaders have certainly committed us in places we aught not be.  But once committed we CANNOT turn back on our word.

loser mentality.

sorry i care about winning.

if the commitment isn't correct we shouldn't make it. agree to disagree i guess.

"sorry mom your son died in a BS foreign war, but HEY at least we kept our word!"

[FourFans]

19 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

loser mentality.

sorry i care about winning.

if the commitment isn't correct we shouldn't make it. agree to disagree i guess.

"sorry mom your son died in a BS foreign war, but HEY at least we kept our word!"

You don't sound like you're about winning, rather that you're about feeling like you're on the right side.  There's a difference.  If you were sincerely about winning, you'd be asking how we help Eastern Europe kick Russia's ass as completely and quickly as possible so they sue for peace and end this war.  That's what winning looks like.

Your can argue the correctness of a war all day, but it don't matter because you don't make that decision.  Which is exactly why I'm not arguing the correctness of a war that us and all our allies are already committed to.  It's worthless.  I don't think the Ukraine war should have happened in the first place, and that it's Europe's problem, but here we are and the fight is already on.  My opinion is OBE.  Like trying to figure out why the guy punched you after the bar-fight started.  It's a wasted effort until you can force both sides to pause and re-assess.

If we choose to back out on supporting Ukraine now, we and the entire western world lose for sure.  We also lose the trust of allies.  Arguing why we're supporting them and how that all happened is completely useless, and more suited to the halls of ivy league schools in about 10 years.

BREAK BREAK

As someone who spent 4.5 years of my life in a "BS foreign war" I can soundly say that yes, keeping our word is worth it.  Perspective is important.  We kept the wolf on his side of the fence for 20 years and we built some outstanding partnerships through the blood, sweat, tears...partnerships which were largely spoiled by the horrific botching of our withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Keeping promises matters.  Honor matters.

Edited November 27 by FourFans

[ClearedHot]

Russia raised conscription age from 27 to 30 and it conscripting 150,000 troops every six months.  Many Russian troops had only two weeks of training before being thrown into the meat grinder.  In total it is estimated Russia has suffered 650,000 casualties with over 100,000 KIA.  Us Defense officials estimate Russia loses 6 soldiers for every Ukrainian soldier they kill.  Attrition warfare is horrific and Russia has been changed for generations by this war. 

 

[BashiChuni]

I’m on the side of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. So yes I am on the right side. 
 

winning in Ukraine involves fighting WW3. Something not in our interest or the worlds. 

Edited November 27 by BashiChuni

[SurelySerious]

I’m on the side of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. So yes I am on the right side. 
 
winning in Ukraine involves fighting WW3. Something not in our interest or the worlds. 

You’re not, though ( you just say random things that are tangential to whatever you are trying to espouse), and just because you only see one path to victory doesn’t mean another doesn’t exist. You want to argue you are on Washington/Jefferson side? Articulate it between 500-690 words. Coherent sentences only.

[Lord Ratner]

20 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

I’m on the side of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. So yes I am on the right side. 
 

winning in Ukraine involves fighting WW3. Something not in our interest or the worlds. 

Hang on, what? On which particular issue are you opining? Jefferson and Washington were the farthest things from allies. And Jefferson was fiercely interventionist. He resigned specifically because of his desire for the US for fight with/for the French during the revolution.

 

There's a part of me that deeply hopes you are as stupid in person as you are online, it would be intensely entertaining. But I know that's not likely. 

[Boomer6]

You guys have been getting trolled by this retard for far too long. Did you forget about gen. chang..? You're arguing with a wet doorknob.

Do yourself a favor and open your profile, select the settings gear, and add him too ignored users. 

[Lord Ratner]

34 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

You guys have been getting trolled by this retard for far too long. Did you forget about gen. chang..? You're arguing with a wet doorknob.

Do yourself a favor and open your profile, select the settings gear, and add him too ignored users. 

Nah, Chang was a brilliant troll-job. Bashi is the clown who's only "trolling" when it gets him out of a corner. 

 

Besides, sadly there are a lot of Republicans who are taking such a simplistic and ignorant view on foreign policy. He's a clown, but he's part of a very big circus.

[Boomer6]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Nah, Chang was a brilliant troll-job. Bashi is the clown who's only "trolling" when it gets him out of a corner. 

They're the same person.

[Lord Ratner]

26 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

They're the same person.

Maybe so, but I didn't think that's ever been proven, and it would be terribly disappointing to know that the Chang incident was just a one-off. It's the difference between a Rembrandt and finger painting.

[BashiChuni]

On 11/28/2024 at 5:18 PM, Boomer6 said:

They're the same person.

[BashiChuni]

On 11/28/2024 at 2:31 PM, Lord Ratner said:

Hang on, what? On which particular issue are you opining? Jefferson and Washington were the farthest things from allies. And Jefferson was fiercely interventionist. He resigned specifically because of his desire for the US for fight with/for the French during the revolution.

 

There's a part of me that deeply hopes you are as stupid in person as you are online, it would be intensely entertaining. But I know that's not likely. 

The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

[Lord Ratner]

54 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

Gotcha. So no clue what you're talking about. Just checking.

[BashiChuni]

28 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Gotcha. So no clue what you're talking about. Just checking.

Keep showing your ignorance 

[gearhog]

How is it some of you continue to be unable to see the writing on the wall? I have always maintained that the progression of this war continues to trend in one direction. Ukraine is losing. It's not propaganda, it's not something I want to happen, it's a just reasonable application of logic to observable objective facts.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, gearhog said:

How is it some of you continue to be unable to see the writing on the wall? I have always maintained that the progression of this war continues to trend in one direction. Ukraine is losing. It's not propaganda, it's not something I want to happen, it's a just reasonable application of logic to observable objective facts.

I never said they would win 🤷🏻‍♂️

[gearhog]

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I never said they would win 🤷🏻‍♂️

That wasn’t directed at you, but those who indignantly cry “Russian propaganda!” at the mere suggestion things aren’t going well for the “good guys”.  We should also expect to hear a chorus of backpedaling insisting that the point of spending hundreds of billions in debt financed Ukraine aid and countless lives was never to win a conventional conflict or reclaim territory lost, but that the goal all along was only to inflict military losses on Russia to disrupt their plans to mount a full scale invasion of Europe. Brilliant.

Edited November 30 by gearhog