The Surrender Of The United States To Russia.

[longly]

You are wrong. And possibly insane.

1. Surrender is never an option.
2. We don't need to declare anything. All we need to do is what we were doing. Sending military aid to the Ukraine. And more to the point, continuing our cold war with Russia. That is as long as they are being led by a dictator. Also, using nuclear weapons at all is unlikely to remain "limited." Only a deranged person would even try. Another point is that the Ukraine actually invaded part of Russia. If that didn't cause Putin to use nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that anything would.

I agree that surrender is never an option in my mind, but I think we may be in the minority. Do you remember when the left would say, 'Better red than dead'? I don't know how many people in this country would choose death or slavery. I think even most of our black citizens would choose slavery over death even though some of them still complain about past slavery. The desire to live is very strong and the enemy can always use to manipulate us. I still remember Vietnam and how we were defeated. And the way we were defeated then, we could be defeated now. Basically, I don’t see anything improving in the country. In fact, it's gotten worse, so I could see a possible defeat of the U.S. and a surrender to some foreign power. Most likely, it wouldn’t be an invasion, but rather the U.S. ending up as a satellite state with Russian or Chinese Masters.

 

[Zavulon]

You are wrong. And possibly insane.

1. Surrender is never an option.

It was an option in Vietnam, it was an option in Afghanistan. Why it can't be an option in Ukraine?

2. We don't need to declare anything. All we need to do is what we were doing.

With the same result?

Sending military aid to the Ukraine.

In the best case you'll just lose a lot of money and Ukrainians will lose a lot of lives.

And more to the point, continuing our cold war with Russia.

In the worst case - Russia will fight America directly.

That is as long as they are being led by a dictator. Also, using nuclear weapons at all is unlikely to remain "limited."

As I said - America can accept defeat at the level of a proxy war (pay reasonable fine and save what can be saved in Europe), can accept defeat at the level of a limited nuclear war in Europe (and lose the whole Europe), at the level of the Russian first counter-force strike against American nuclear forces (don't retaliate and lose Alaska and California), at the level of counter-value strikes (lose at least 30% of the population and the very independence), or America can choose to fight until the last man, woman and child (and in this case all Americans will die).

Only a deranged person would even try.

Of course no. Russians already decided that it is the "lesser evil".

Another point is that the Ukraine actually invaded part of Russia. If that didn't cause Putin to use nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that anything would.

You don't know a thing about nuclear deterrence, do you?

 

[Highlight]

I agree that surrender is never an option in my mind, but I think we may be in the minority. Do you remember when the left would say, 'Better red than dead'? I don't know how many people in this country would choose death or slavery. I think even most of our black citizens would choose slavery over death even though some of them still complain about past slavery. The desire to live is very strong and the enemy can always use to manipulate us. I still remember Vietnam and how we were defeated. And the way we were defeated then, we could be defeated now. Basically, I don’t see anything improving in the country. In fact, it's gotten worse, so I could see a possible defeat of the U.S. and a surrender to some foreign power. Most likely, it wouldn’t be an invasion, but rather the U.S. ending up as a satellite state with Russian or Chinese Masters.

There is what I remember, and what I KNOW. I do remember hearing of the saying "better red than dead." But that isn't something I have ever thought. Neither have I ever personally heard anybody say that. What I KNOW is that our country is run by wealthy scumbags. Which includes the media. That is the reason why I ever heard the term "better red than dead." As to how we were defeated by Russia, you need to look up and read my thread, "Is Trump a Russian agent?"

 

[Highlight]

There is what I remember, and what I KNOW. I do remember hearing of the saying "better red than dead." But that isn't something I have ever thought. Neither have I ever personally heard anybody say that. What I KNOW is that our country is run by wealthy scumbags. Which includes the media. That is the reason why I ever heard the term "better red than dead." As to how we were defeated by Russia, you need to look up and read my thread, "Is Trump a Russian agent?"

It was an option in Vietnam, it was an option in Afghanistan. Why it can't be an option in Ukraine?

With the same result?

In the best case you'll just lose a lot of money and Ukrainians will lose a lot of lives.


In the worst case - Russia will fight America directly.


As I said - America can accept defeat at the level of a proxy war (pay reasonable fine and save what can be saved in Europe), can accept defeat at the level of a limited nuclear war in Europe (and lose the whole Europe), at the level of the Russian first counter-force strike against American nuclear forces (don't retaliate and lose Alaska and California), at the level of counter-value strikes (lose at least 30% of the population and the very independence), or America can choose to fight until the last man, woman and child (and in this case all Americans will die).


Of course no. Russians already decided that it is the "lesser evil".


You don't know a thing about nuclear deterrence, do you?

1. I wouldn't say we surrendered in Vietnam. Did North Vietnam take control of the U.S.? It was a bullshit "police action" conflict to begin with. The only way we could have won it was by sending U.S. troops into North Vietnam. But that would have brought us into direct conflict with China. And it was the same case with Afghanistan. The only chance we would have had in winning that is by going into the country where the enemy was. In Vietnam, that would have been North Vietnam. In the Afghan war, that would have been Pakistan. That wouldn't have been worth the effort. But the Ukraine is a whole different matter. There all we need to do is help the Ukrainians kick the Russians out.

2. No, not with the same result.

3. You let the Ukrainians worry about the Ukrainians. With enough support, Russia will give up on the Ukraine jist like they gave up on the Afghans.

4. Worst case? Stop making crap up. If we don't have American troops in the Ukraine now, it is unlikely that we ever will.

5. The rest isn't worth replying to.

 

[Unkotare]

Why is this stupid troll thread still here?

 

[Highlight]

Why is this stupid troll thread still here?

Try reading my thread. Also, I wonder. Should I put you on ignore now, or wait a while?

 

[Unkotare]

Try reading my thread. Also, I wonder. Should I put you on ignore now, or wait a while?

Run away now if you're going to.

 

[longly]

I'm sorry, but there's no other way to describe it—the idea that Trump is a Russian agent is ridiculous. In order to be a Russian agent, he would have to to take orders from someone, and Trump is incapable of taking orders. If it hadn't been for his father, he would have starved to death; he had to have a job where he could start at the top. The only person he ever took orders from was his father, and he's gone now.

 

[longly]

1. I wouldn't say we surrendered in Vietnam. Did North Vietnam take control of the U.S.? It was a bullshit "police action" conflict to begin with. The only way we could have won it was by sending U.S. troops into North Vietnam. But that would have brought us into direct conflict with China. And it was the same case with Afghanistan. The only chance we would have had in winning that is by going into the country where the enemy was. In Vietnam, that would have been North Vietnam. In the Afghan war, that would have been Pakistan. That wouldn't have been worth the effort. But the Ukraine is a whole different matter. There all we need to do is help the Ukrainians kick the Russians out.

2. No, not with the same result.

3. You let the Ukrainians worry about the Ukrainians. With enough support, Russia will give up on the Ukraine jist like they gave up on the Afghans.

4. Worst case? Stop making crap up. If we don't have American troops in the Ukraine now, it is unlikely that we ever will.

5. The rest isn't worth replying to.

The U.S. did not lose the war in Vietnam militarily; we lost it politically. The enemy hit us with enough propaganda that the people lost heart and simply gave up—similar to the propaganda now being used in Gaza. Some even went over to the other side, mostly Democrats, in my opinion.

When we left, we not only failed to provide soldiers, but we also failed to provide support. It was obvious that the South would fall—they had no ammunition, which is a mistake we should avoid if Ukraine. And if North Korea is involved in the war, this is a golden opportunity to weaken them.

I, too, am concerned about the expense of the weapons we're providing. What we should do is find a cheaper or more efficient way to build the weapons we need, but nobody seems to consider that. Instead, it seems like they always want the most expensive weapons they can get, but cost does not always equal quality

 

[longly]

There is what I remember, and what I KNOW. I do remember hearing of the saying "better red than dead." But that isn't something I have ever thought. Neither have I ever personally heard anybody say that. What I KNOW is that our country is run by wealthy scumbags. Which includes the media. That is the reason why I ever heard the term "better red than dead." As to how we were defeated by Russia, you need to look up and read my thread, "Is Trump a Russian agent?"

" What I KNOW is that our country is run by wealthy scumbags."

That is true in every country; the only difference is the varying degrees of wealth. The ordinary guy is not the one who can rise to the top of the pecking order, and I don't know if he should really care—as long as he does what we want.

 

[Zavulon]

1. I wouldn't say we surrendered in Vietnam. Did North Vietnam take control of the U.S.? It was a bullshit "police action" conflict to begin with. The only way we could have won it was by sending U.S. troops into North Vietnam. But that would have brought us into direct conflict with China. And it was the same case with Afghanistan. The only chance we would have had in winning that is by going into the country where the enemy was. In Vietnam, that would have been North Vietnam. In the Afghan war, that would have been Pakistan. That wouldn't have been worth the effort. But the Ukraine is a whole different matter. There all we need to do is help the Ukrainians kick the Russians out.

No. To win in Russian-Ukrainian conflict you need to enter Russia, defeat all Russian forces and occupy all Russian cities, for Russia won't surrender even if Ukrainian forces capture Moscow.

2. No, not with the same result.

3. You let the Ukrainians worry about the Ukrainians. With enough support, Russia will give up on the Ukraine jist like they gave up on the Afghans.

No. Ukraine is not "Russian Afghanistan". Afghanistan wasn't vital neither for Russia, nor for America. Ukraine is "Russian Confederacy". American Civil War was vital for the USA, and Ukrainian conflict is vital for the Russian Federation.

4. Worst case? Stop making crap up. If we don't have American troops in the Ukraine now, it is unlikely that we ever will.

It is not necessarily to have American troops in Ukraine to provoke Russians for direct attack against the USA.