Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[O Face]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Nobody is saying abandon the border for the sake of Ukraine in this argument. 

That is more or less exactly what was said in Congress last week.  

 

Look Bud, I love that you’re passionate about Ukraine. I like that you’re hanging out with Polish Generals. I’m certain your current job offers plenty of insight on the conflict that most don’t have. Having said that, maybe next time you’re home and your trip to Walmart costs 4 times what it did a few years ago, or bounce around to our once thriving metro areas and witness the epic nosedive into 3rd world cesspools, you might just gain a little understanding on why so many of us deplorables are slightly hesitant to donate even more of our great grandchildren’s inheritance to Zelensky and pals. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by O Face
.

[Lawman]

I agree with you. However, maybe some of the people on the other side of the ocean could deal with it a little harder too. (Germany) or hell how about on our side of the ocean (Canada). 
Look Bud, I love that you’re passionate about Ukraine. I like that you’re hanging out with Polish Generals. I’m certain your current job offers plenty of insight on the conflict that most don’t have. Having said that, maybe next time you’re home and your trip to Walmart costs 4 times what it did a few years ago, or bounce around to our once thriving metro areas and witness the epic nosedive into 3rd world cesspools, you might just gain a little understanding on why so many of us deplorables are slightly hesitant to donate our great grandchildren’s inheritance to Zelensky and pals. 

Look at the post directly above this one.

Like I said treating this like we are throwing money and telling our people to eat shoe leather while the Euros enjoy vacations, wine, and siestas is disingenuous to the reality of what spending they’ve done. The US growth has outpaced the EU substantially since the last decade and the housing crises/recession passed. Without England in it we outpace the EU by double in GDP. They still produced tens of billions of dollars for Ukrainian funding/aid as well as investment in military infrastructure largely purchased directly from us which is good both economically and in terms of commonality in a future fight.

It’s easy to just pick on Germany as the punching bag example of how not to invest in a military for the last 30+ years. Even they went up a couple billion in the span of a year while their total government spending went down almost 8-10% (depends on source of exchange rates) because of the economic slowdown down in their own country, that’s a pretty massive change for them with the stated goal to continue cranking up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stoker]

The good news for those of you worried about the (tiny fraction of the) debt imposed on your children due to Ukraine spending is that, if we just let the Russians roll over Ukraine and a few other countries, your kids won't need to worry about the debt, because they'll be too worried about dying in a conflict with Putin's successor when he invades the Baltics or Poland.

Deterrence is always much cheaper than the inevitable fight after appeasement.

[Lawman]

The good news for those of you worried about the (tiny fraction of the) debt imposed on your children due to Ukraine spending is that, if we just let the Russians roll over Ukraine and a few other countries, your kids won't need to worry about the debt, because they'll be too worried about dying in a conflict with Putin's successor when he invades the Baltics or Poland.
Deterrence is always much cheaper than the inevitable fight after appeasement.

Don’t worry, the debt resets to O after the EMPs go off. It’s a feature of the plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[O Face]

Actually, I did. After I posted it. Then I edited it to not be redundant. I still don’t quite correlate Germany’s spending on their own military to being equal to us giving away billions. However, if you and I could agree that spending billions of US dollars on our own military equipment and deploying it to the US southern border, was also good for Ukraine, well then I think we are finally getting somewhere. 

9 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Look at the post directly above this one.

Like I said treating this like we are throwing money and telling our people to eat shoe leather while the Euros enjoy vacations, wine, and siesta s is disingenuous to the reality of what spending they’ve done.

It’s easy to just pick on Germany as the punching bag example of how not to invest in a military, but even they went up a couple billion in the span of a year while their total government spending went down almost 8-10% (depends on source of exchange rates) because of the economic slowdown down in their own country, that’s a pretty massive change for them with the stated goal to continue cranking up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by O Face

[Lawman]

Actually, I did. After I posted it. Then I edited it to not be redundant. I still don’t quite correlate Germany’s spending on their own military to being equal to us giving away billions. However, if you and I could agree that spending billions of US dollars on our own military equipment and deploying it to the US southern border, was also good for Ukraine, well then I think we are finally getting somewhere. 
ilitary

No I don’t think spending billions on a military to deploy it to our border is a smart financial investment at all.

The cost to outfit and equip the soldiers we send down there far outstrips the cost effectiveness of a body on the border. Now expanding an agency like CBP/Coast Guard/port control absolutely. Using the Army to be CBP or those other functions when I now cost the drain to regular unit readiness, lower enlistment rates, all the kit we issue in RFI, etc etc…hell no.

There are far smarter ways to effectively work on the issue of the border and most of it involves law enforcement and thinks like going after employers, two things the military is wholly unsuited for. Unfortunately the Army (particularly the reserves/guard) have become a political easy button for it with no regard to long term cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[O Face]

1 minute ago, Lawman said:

No I don’t think spending billions on a military to deploy it to our border is a smart financial investment at all.

The cost to outfit and equip the soldiers we send down there far outstrips the cost effectiveness of a body on the border. Now expanding an agency like CBP/Coast Guard/port control absolutely. Using the Army to be CBP or those other functions when I now cost the drain to regular unit readiness, lower enlistment rates, all the kit we issue in RFI, etc etc…hell no.

There are far smarter ways to effectively work on the issue of the border and most of it involves law enforcement and thinks like going after employers, two things the military is wholly unsuited for. Unfortunately the Army (particularly the reserves/guard) have become a political easy button for it with no regard to long term cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn’t agree more. Could we also include enforcing our own federal laws too?  My post was more tongue in cheek dig at Germany. 

[Lawman]

Couldn’t agree more. Could we also include enforcing our own federal laws too?  My post was more tongue in cheek dig at Germany. 

I mean there’s plenty to pick on with the Germans. Lord knows I’ve seen it since I was stationed there all of 4 years. Still they’ve become the easy button to sell people on the populism message of “we gotta take care of our own.”

It’s an old bias that I was happy to see Trump call out (callous as his normal method) but it’s not effectively true anymore. They are starting to fix their long overdue stupidity. The first step in that was getting rid of Merkle who for the whole of the Trump admin just adopted the contrarian position along with people like Trudeau rather than actually worked to strengthen NATO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[O Face]

31 minutes ago, Stoker said:

The good news for those of you worried about the (tiny fraction of the) debt imposed on your children due to Ukraine spending is that, if we just let the Russians roll over Ukraine and a few other countries, your kids won't need to worry about the debt, because they'll be too worried about dying in a conflict with Putin's successor when he invades the Baltics or Poland.

Deterrence is always much cheaper than the inevitable fight after appeasement.

For fuck’s sake… The point I obviously haven’t made clear, is that the US government spending on Ukraine is NEVER going to be too popular while shit is falling apart at home. I’m not saying war is cheaper than deterrence, or that Russia is actually awesome, or that Putin is a great guy; I hope he chokes and dies on his borscht tonight. But when the average American is struggling to put food on the table, cutting another couple hundred billion $ to a country far away from home is ALWAYS gonna be a tough sell. And calling everyone who disagrees an idiot or Putin jock-sniffer won’t help your cause either. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by O Face
,

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

However the current situation is that we're rushing to rescue Western Europe who doesn't feel threatened or inclined to break the bank investing militarily due to ann imminent Russian invasion.

Says who?

 

One of the primary reasons I support Ukraine is because they are willing to die for their country. Western Europe is no where in my calculus. 

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

One of the primary reasons I support Ukraine is because they are willing to die for their country. Western Europe is no where in my calculus. 

An argument I was replying to was essentially that we must protect Ukraine in order to defend NATO from follow on incursion.  You're making an unrelated point, which although laudable, is not good enough reason for me to support continued un-audited spending on UKR while our border remains open.  Sorry dude, US first then I'm open to your perspective.

[HeloDude]

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Says who?

 

One of the primary reasons I support Ukraine is because they are willing to die for their country. Western Europe is no where in my calculus. 

If the Ukrainians were willing to die for their country then you wouldn’t need forced conscription.  And this goes for any country in a similar situation.  This is the exact opposite of freedom by the way.

[Lawman]

If the Ukrainians were willing to die for their country then you wouldn’t need forced conscription.  And this goes for any country in a similar situation.  This is the exact opposite of freedom by the way.

We had forced conscription in both world wars to meet the ever churning requirement for manpower. We also did deferments of people who wanted to serve but were judged to be to vital in position and told no they couldn’t serve. Nobody would argue about the righteousness of our cause in the Second World War, yet it took 2/3 of our military being drafted to meet the requirements of it. By the beginning of 1945 there was a real discussion at the White House/Chief of staff levels on how we were going to apportion and release vs not release the ETO troops. The decision was those that “done enough” could go, those that hadn’t would serve as the veterans and the units would be backfilled with new inductees because of the manpower requirements that taking and occupying Japan would have required. Remember this is after we fought for Saipan and started seeing the suicidal side of Japanese resolve. The points episode of BOBs barely scratched this topic, same as Flags of our Fathers talked about war fatigue in funding and a desire by many to make terms with the Japanese.

Ukraine is not in a unique situation, it’s a reality of any nation caught in an existential struggle for its existence managing the total economic and manpower of its nation to grant it the means to continue the war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

Just now, Lawman said:

We had forced conscription in both world wars to meet the ever churning requirement for manpower. We also did deferments of people who wanted to serve but were judged to be to vital in position and told no they couldn’t serve. Nobody would argue about the righteousness of our cause in the Second World War, but by the beginning of 1945 there was a real discussion at the White House/Chief of staff levels on how we were going to not let the ETO troops leave and turn their enlistments to indefinite because of the manpower requirements that taking and occupying Japan would have required. The points episode of BOBs barely scratched this topic, same as Flags of our Fathers talked about war fatigue in funding and a desire by many to make terms with the Japanese.

Ukraine is not in a unique situation, it’s a reality of any nation caught in an existential struggle for its existence managing the total economic and manpower of its nation to grant it the means to continue the war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Conveniently you also left off the forced conscription for fighting in Korea and Vietnam.  But to your direct point about WW2, yes, I’m also against conscription if we found ourselves in another world war.  You are truly not free if you are told to pick up a gun and go to war, and if you won’t, the government will criminalize you for it.  If a country is worth fighting for, then you’ll have enough people voluntarily willing to fight for it.

[Clark Griswold]

The Democratic coalition could make this divide go away on Ukraine funding tomorrow if they proposed paying for it via war bonds or tax increases paid by the investor / corporate class (top 0.1%) with passive income tax reforms AND immigration enforcement / border security / reasonable asylum law interpretation

Do those two things explicitly to get Ukrainian funding and we can move to the next political argument


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Conveniently you also left off the forced conscription for fighting in Korea and Vietnam.  But to your direct point about WW2, yes, I’m also against conscription if we found ourselves in another world war.  You are truly not free if you are told to pick up a gun and go to war, and if you won’t, the government will criminalize you for it.  If a country is worth fighting for, then you’ll have enough people voluntarily willing to fight for it.

It wasn’t “worth fighting for” against the Nazis by your standard. If it had been we wouldn’t have needed 2/3 of our military to be forced into uniform while the rest of our population was told no there won’t be a new model of Chevrolet this year, we’re making M5 tanks though if you’re interested in driving one. And while it’s a popular myth, most of the people that served in the wartime position of Vietnam weren’t draftees. Draftees were bulk used to maintain commitments abroad. Only a quarter ever went to South East Asia as a theatre, roughly a third of that number served in support capacities in places like Thailand on the periphery.

Now I’ve got no doubt when actual Nazis started hitting our cities directly there would be a realization by plenty that something needed to be done and the time to act was now, but that’s far to late to build a military out of which is something a short range problem focused populace will never be capable of understanding. That’s why we started drafting people in 1940 before a single bomb was dropped on our soil. The powers that be were smart enough to read the tea leaves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

Just now, Lawman said:

It wasn’t “worth fighting for” against the Nazis by your standard. If it had been we wouldn’t have needed 2/3 of our military to be forced into uniform while the rest of our population was told no there won’t be a new model of Chevrolet this year, we’re making M5 tanks though if you’re interested in driving one.

Now I’ve got no doubt when actual Nazis started hitting our cities directly there would be a realization by plenty that something needed to be done and the time to act was now, but that’s far to late to build a military out of which is something a short range problem focused populace will never be capable of understanding. That’s why we started drafting people in 1940 before a single bomb was dropped on our soil. The powers that be were smart enough to read the tea leaves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If not enough people voluntarily wanted to fight the Nazis, then no, to them it wasn’t worth it.  You either have enough volunteers under the terms of an agreement (ie an enlistment) or you don’t.  You can use whatever emotional arguments you want, but either you believe in personal freedom to go/not to go a war if asked, or you don’t believe in it.  If freedom and liberty and can be suspended then you were never actually free.  Don’t forget, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

[Lawman]

If not enough people voluntarily wanted to fight the Nazis, then no, to them it wasn’t worth it.  You either have enough volunteers under the terms of an agreement (ie an enlistment) or you don’t.  You can use whatever emotional arguments you want, but either you believe in personal freedom to go/not to go a war if asked, or you don’t believe in it.  If freedom and liberty and can be suspended then you were never actually free.  Don’t forget, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Your freedom and liberty to choose is at the ballot box. Same as it is for the Ukrainians. If you don’t want a draft than elect people to put it into law that you will never use one. We are and have been for several decades and “all volunteer force” just ignore things like stop loss or refusing to grant retirements and so forth. If the political sway is such that something as unpopular as a draft can happen without the immediate loss of those reps that enacted it surviving with their seat intact guess what, that’s consensus and by definition consent of the governed.

We participate in a society of voices and opinions with general consensus being the path forward. Saying “you can’t make me fight” when we have laws stating yes we can which were enacted by elected representatives is no different than the liberal hissyfits of “he’s not my president” when Trump or Bush were elected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Your freedom and liberty to choose is at the ballot box.

Oh man…some of the most dangerous words I’ve heard or read.  This means that my liberty and freedom only exist to what elected officials allow me to have…since they were voted in.

[ClearedHot]

[HeloDude]

10 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Is this including the college football thread?

[Lawman]

Oh man…some of the most dangerous words I’ve heard or read.  This means that my liberty and freedom only exist to what elected officials allow me to have…since they were voted in.

No it means when somebody is screaming that Ukrainians don’t have the will to fight because of conscription it ignores the fact they like us have a representative democratic process.

If conscription was so out of line with the will of the represented it would result in 1 of 2 options; vote out those reps in a referendum (again the ballot box) or have a revolution.

Since none have occurred the portrayal as Ukrainians being unwilling to fight because people are being jailed or running away in refusal is misrepresenting the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uhhello]

5 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No it means when somebody is screaming that Ukrainians don’t have the will to fight because of conscription it ignores the fact they like us have a representative democratic process.

If conscription was so out of line with the will of the represented it would result in 1 of 2 options; vote out those reps in a referendum (again the ballot box) or have a revolution.

Since none have occurred the portrayal as Ukrainians being unwilling to fight because people are being jailed or running away in refusal is misrepresenting the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless the elections are cancelled.....

 

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-birthday-grenade-b1b82e4f84eb5a39286d1500cf49fcd1

Edited December 13, 2023 by uhhello

[Lawman]

Unless the elections are cancelled.....
 
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-birthday-grenade-b1b82e4f84eb5a39286d1500cf49fcd1

Which would seem weird if not for the fact it’s permitted under their law in time of Martial Law/War.

That then opens up option 2 for popular referendum/revolution but the polling is showing something in the 70-80% of Ukrainians being against holding an election with a large portion of their population unable to participate. So that’s not likely to materialize either.

The political pressure in Zelenskyy to hold an election and potentially change the course of the war effort isn’t coming from Ukraine. It’s coming from people on our side of the Atlantic choosing to use it as a justification to end funding they’ve called to end before any announcement was made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uhhello]

5 minutes ago, Lawman said:

 

Which would seem weird if not for the fact it’s permitted under their law in time of Martial Law/War.

That then opens up option 2 for popular referendum/revolution but the polling is showing something in the 70-80% of Ukrainians being against holding an election with a large portion of their population unable to participate. So that’s not likely to materialize either.

The political pressure in Zelenskyy to hold an election and potentially change the course of the war effort isn’t coming from Ukraine. It’s coming from people on our side of the Atlantic choosing to use it as a justification to end funding they’ve called to end before any announcement was made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Of course.  But the perception is a mother fucker