Breaking! Biden To Escalate War In Ukraine By Sending in Long Range Offensive Missiles

[Seymour Flops]

If the US lets Russia take over the Ukraine, what will happen to the US in terms of being a world power? How will it impact the US economy? How will countries like Russia and China treat the US? How will they treat other countries? How will other countries (especially US allies and friendly countries) see the US and how will they react?

The reality is the US made a LOT OF MONEY out of having allies and friendly countries. Imagine the Cold War with no allies, would the US have won? No, they'd have struggled to sell things abroad and would have become poor.

That's an interesting argument. A breath of fresh air from the usual "because ORANGE MAN BAD" we get from the pro-war folk here. The economic aspect of it reminds me of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang called "Establishment Republicans" sending troops to protect cheap oil.

Situation at hand is we need to take all of that economic impact. into account. But we should finally learn at least a little from history, because we got ourselves into this situation.

Our involvement in the Cold War stemed from our involvement in WWII, which stemmed from our involvement in WWI. That is three wars, if you rightly count the Cold War as an actual war with huge expendatures of money and lives (Korea, Vietnam, and the last gasp at Granada.

My opinion is that we could have better served ourselves, if we had done what we had done for well over one hundred years between the Constitution and our entry into the First 20th century war in Europe. During those years, we sat between our two big oceans to the east and west, the third world to the south and a non-warfighting people to the north.

We had peace and prosperity other than our internal battles with the American Tribal People and the Civil War. We were certainly not "poor" because we weren't supporting and defending enough allies. We had people fleeing Europe in a steady stream.

Point is that we have all the natural resources that we need right here. Our chief trading partners are not in Europe but in Asia. We will always be less interested in interfering in Asian politics because Europeans look more like our leaders than Asians do.

I take it that your ideas about American involvement in other countries is basically amoral? Not in a bad way, but you are only concerned for America, and have no scruples about what we do or don't do to or for other countries? If that's the case, we'd be better off focusing on Latin America.

It is Latin-America that threatens to impoverish the United States now, through mass immigration of its third world people, third world crime, third world poverty and third world policies. Our own border is under invasion, so that where our own military should be, not in Ukraine.

 

[jknowgood]

You clearly haven't read the Mueller report. When Trump calls it a hoax you can be pretty sure it's not. Remember how Trump said climate change was a Chinese hoax. What a lying con and you're been suckered.

I knew it was a hoax from the beginning. Every prediction has been wrong.

 

[jknowgood]

And then what would happen?

Let Russia and Ukraine figure it out. Both countries are corrupt.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Better to fight this fight in Ukraine than in Poland or Germany or France or England... or the East Coast of the United States.

The West learned its lesson in 1938 in Munich... Appeasement and Isolationism don't work for long... so we won't be indulging in that now.

The lesson 1941 through 1945 should have been that if you takes sides in wars thousands of miles away then don't be surprised when the country you take sides against becomes your enemy and attacks you. Sending the Ukrainians weapons to deter a war before it started was one thing. Sending them long-range misslies to strike inside Russia, is completely different. It will be seen by Russia as an act of war by the U.S. against Russia, and it will be hard to argue with the logic of that.

Take-up drinking if you haven't got the stomach for it, and let the rest of us do what needs to be done in order to keep The Beast at bay.

YOU are going to do what needs to be done?

Please describe your personal contribution to this war on Russia you want in detail.

This is NATO's time to shine.

God bless each and every person of goodwill who reluctantly but vigorously supports stopping Putin now rather than enduring much more suffering later.

Ukraine is not even in NATO. The purpose of NATO was for the U.S. to finance and staff the defense of member nations, not to just protect "everybody."

We will suffer greatly if we get into a war with Russia. Russia will lose one way or another, but it will be up to them to choose the way. They will not give up rather than go nuclear. We would win a nuclear war, I have no doubt. But it would be the ultimate Pyrrhic victory. In fact, whatever is left of humanity will change the phrase to "Bidenic Victory."

 

[krichton]

My man….Poot and the piano dick player were AT THE FUCKING TABLE…THEN WE SENT $40 B in weapons to Ukraine and The comedian said he would not negotiate.

Zelensky Announces Talks with Russia as Putin Ups Nuclear Saber-Rattling, Fighting Drags On

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that a Ukrainian delegation would participate in talks with a Russian delegation on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border "without preconditions."

news.yahoo.com

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/19/politics/senate-vote-ukraine-aid-package/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097883083/how-the-u-s-aid-to-ukraine-is-taking-shape

yes, after the war was already underway. I'm still confused how Biden was supposed to broker a "peace deal" before the war started when even Putin's own soldiers didn't know they were going to war with Ukraine. What kind of deal do you give Russia when they haven't even done anything yet. That's sort of like folding your hand in poker because your opponent looked intimidatingly at you.

Who exactly would "negotiate" the full surrender of their country and their jailing? Weird. Would you support your president if he did this? If Russia invaded the US, would you want Biden to broker a deal for Russia to take over the country?

 

[Kondor3]

The lesson 1941 through 1945 should have been that if you takes sides in wars thousands of miles away then don't be surprised with you adversary becomes your enemy and attacks you. Sending the Ukrainians weapons to deter a war before it started was one thing. Sendinging them long-range misslies to strike inside Russia, will be seen by Russia as an act of war by the U.S. against Russia. hard to argue with the logic of that.

YOU are going to do what needs to be done?

Please describe your personal contribution to this war on Russia you want in detail.

Ukraine is not even in NATO. The purpose of NATO was for the U.S. to finance and staff the defense of member nations, not to just protect "everybody."

We will suffer greatly if we get into a war with Russia. They will not give up rather than go nuclear. We would win a nuclear war, I have no doubt. But it would be the ultimate Pyrrhic victory. In fact, whatever is left of humanity will change the phrase to "Bidenic Victory."

You can stop shaking in your booties... there will be no nuclear war with Russia... they are expansionist, not suicidal.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You can stop shaking in your booties... there will be no nuclear war with Russia... they are expansionist, not suicidal.

So your entire argument rests on Putin's sanity?

 

[Kondor3]

Ukraine is not even in NATO.

Correct. But they are fighting NATO's key adversary. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Russia (Putin, anyway) has chosen to make itself our Enemy again.

 

[Kondor3]

So your entire argument rests on Putin's sanity?

Nope. The sanity of Russia, collectively. They are under Putin's thumb but they are not insane. In any case, caving-in to Putin would be prohibitively costly.

A couple of hundred-billion now or dozens of trillions of dollars later. I choose the former. So do a majority of people who understand long-term implications.

"On ne passe pas!"

 

[JohnDB]

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's an interesting argument. A breath of fresh air from the usual "because ORANGE MAN BAD" we get from the pro-war folk here. The economic aspect of it reminds me of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang called "Establishment Republicans" sending troops to protect cheap oil.

Situation at hand is we need to take all of that economic impact. into account. But we should finally learn at least a little from history, because we got ourselves into this situation.

Our involvement in the Cold War stemed from our involvement in WWII, which stemmed from our involvement in WWI. That is three wars, if you rightly count the Cold War as an actual war with huge expendatures of money and lives (Korea, Vietnam, and the last gasp at Granada.

My opinion is that we could have better served ourselves, if we had done what we had done for well over one hundred years between the Constitution and our entry into the First 20th century war in Europe. During those years, we sat between our two big oceans to the east and west, the third world to the south and a non-warfighting people to the north.

We had peace and prosperity other than our internal battles with the American Tribal People and the Civil War. We were certainly not "poor" because we weren't supporting and defending enough allies. We had people fleeing Europe in a steady stream.

Point is that we have all the natural resources that we need right here. Our chief trading partners are not in Europe but in Asia. We will always be less interested in interfering in Asian politics because Europeans look more like our leaders than Asians do.

I take it that your ideas about American involvement in other countries is basically amoral? Not in a bad way, but you are only concerned for America, and have no scruples about what we do or don't do to or for other countries? If that's the case, we'd be better off focusing on Latin America.

It is Latin-America that threatens to impoverish the United States now, through mass immigration of its third world people, third world crime, third world poverty and third world policies. Our own border is under invasion, so that where our own military should be, not in Ukraine.

First, I object to "a breath of fresh air". It's usually used for politicians who are salesmen and full of crap.
Second, there are people whose arguments are full of crap on both sides and they don't bother to understand things.
Anyway, to the topic, yes, one war will lead to the next war, I guess it's always been like that. Wars happen for reasons that started a long time ago. Putin was a product of the USSR, came to power because of how the US reacted to the fall of Communism by helping most countries but not Russia.

Thing is, the US couldn't have avoided WW2. They were too powerful and a threat to the Japanese.
Latin America is a fun one, post WW2 the US had the Marshall Plan, the US should do the same for Latin America. The Germans made it rich by having more countries join the EU, they spent money building infrastructure, making things better, and they will benefit from it even more in the future.
The US needs to work WITH Latin American countries, instead of trying to be the older brother, protector/bully that it's been for so long.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So your entire argument rests on Putin's sanity?

Putin has sanity? News to me.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nope. The sanity of Russia, collectively. They are under Putin's thumb but they are not insane.

If they are under Putin's thumb, which they are, their sanity is irrelevant.

In any case, caving-in to Putin would be prohibitively costly.

Only if we decide we will spend whatever it takes in blood and gold to save Ukraine. If that was the plan we should have let them in NATO long ago.

A couple of hundred-billion now or dozens of trillions of dollars later. I choose the former. So do a majority of people who understand long-term implications.

"On ne passe pas!"

Since you didn't answer before, I take it your contribution to saving Ukraine is this right here. You'll be safe and warm while others die for your cause.

 

[Seymour Flops]

First, I object to "a breath of fresh air". It's usually used for politicians who are salesmen and full of crap.
Second, there are people whose arguments are full of crap on both sides and they don't bother to understand things.

I was snarky first, which I usually am not. Regrets.

Anyway, to the topic, yes, one war will lead to the next war, I guess it's always been like that. Wars happen for reasons that started a long time ago. Putin was a product of the USSR, came to power because of how the US reacted to the fall of Communism by helping most countries but not Russia.

My point is that we let it happen to us. Europe has fought one war after another for more than two thousand years. No need to the U.S., having seperated ourselves from that cesspool of a quasi-continent, to join in with them.

Thing is, the US couldn't have avoided WW2. They were too powerful and a threat to the Japanese.

Then we should have stopped being a threat to the Japanese, but helping the Chinese.

Latin America is a fun one, post WW2 the US had the Marshall Plan, the US should do the same for Latin America. The Germans made it rich by having more countries join the EU, they spent money building infrastructure, making things better, and they will benefit from it even more in the future.

I'd much rather a Marshall plan for Latin America than lose any more money and lives in the endless Euro-wars.

The US needs to work WITH Latin American countries, instead of trying to be the older brother, protector/bully that it's been for so long.

Yes, but first we need to stop importing their problems here, which will weaken us to the point atht we can be nether protector, nor helper.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I was snarky first, which I usually am not. Regrets.

My point is that we let it happen to us. Europe has fought one war after another for more than two thousand years. No need to the U.S., having seperated ourselves from that cesspool of a quasi-continent, to join in with them.

Then we should have stopped being a threat to the Japanese, but helping the Chinese.

I'd much rather a Marshall plan for Latin America than lose any more money and lives in the endless Euro-wars.

Yes, but first we need to stop importing their problems here, which will weaken us to the point atht we can be nether protector, nor helper.

I'm not sure how you could stop such things, things will always happen as a result of what happened in the past. Yes, the US could have sat back and let things happen around it, but that doesn't mean you're going to get a better result.

The US couldn't have stopped being a threat. Japan wanted oil, wanted to expand into southeast Asia, and the US was an inherent threat without doing anything.

Yes, a Marshall Plan for Latin America is the sensible option, hence why it'll never happen. Such is US politics.

You can't stop importing Latin America's problems. The US had the Monroe Doctrine, and because for the US is MONEY, cha-ching.. and people will drift towards the money. The US can put up walls, it can deport people, and still they'll come.