Ukrainians asking themselves this question this morning

[tyroneweaver]

Didn’t that moron Joe Biden say we were supposed to have been invaded yesterday

 

[ConserveGuy]

Things will be more tense now dealing with Russia thanks to Sleepy joe and his people provoking a mini Cold War. The people will remember that President Trump kept a country in line not needing to provoke.

 

[toobfreak]

Ukrainians asking themselves this question this morning​

"Gee, we sure wish we had Donald back now!"

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Things will be more tense now dealing with Russia thanks to Sleepy joe and his people provoking a mini Cold War. The people will remember that President Trump kept a country in line not needing to provoke.

Unlike Trump, Biden does not kiss Putin's rear end. He called Putin a killer.

 

[OKTexas]

Didn’t that moron Joe Biden say we were supposed to have been invaded yesterday

.

 

[Dayton3]

Unlike Trump, Biden does not kiss Putin's rear end. He called Putin a killer.

What good did that do?

 

[gipper]

Unlike Trump, Biden does not kiss Putin's rear end. He called Putin a killer.

Calling a leader of a foreign country a killer isn’t smart diplomacy. It’s dumb and particularly dumb doing it to the world’s second largest nuclear arsenal.

That said, Trump was not much better. He imposed onerous sanctions on Russia, piling on the ridiculous sanctions placed by Ears.

It’s clear the oligarchy wants war with Russia.

 

[Batcat]

I agree the oligarchy wants a nice dirty little war to profit from but I doubt they want a nuclear war. Maybe they just hope to sell European nations a stockpile of brand new shinny weapons. 1

 

[tyroneweaver]

Unlike Trump, Biden does not kiss Putin's rear end. He called Putin a killer.

and trump would never call ukraine a democracy, which it isn't

 

[Dayton3]

I agree the oligarchy wants a nice dirty little war to profit from but I doubt they want a nuclear war. Maybe they just hope to sell European nations a stockpile of brand new shinny weapons. 1

Why would a "nice, dirty little war" be profitable? This isn't the World War Two Era. Actual war rarely profits anyone much.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Batcat]

Why would a "nice, dirty little war" be profitable? This isn't the World War Two Era. Actual war rarely profits anyone much.

Reports and Analyses

Our reports and analyses highlight ways government isn’t best serving the people, and they recommend ways it can.

www.pogo.org

***snip***

While the United States didn’t win in Iraq or Afghanistan, American defense contractors and their shareholders certainly did. The American people paid approximately $14 trillion to fight the post-9/11 wars, about half of which went into the coffers of defense contractors who either supplied weapons and equipment or provided services to support the war and reconstruction efforts. William Hartung at the Center for International Policy recently reported that just the top five U.S. Pentagon contractors — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman — received more than $2.1 trillion worth of contracts during the post-9/11 spending surge. During the same time, the big five spent $1.1 billion for lobbyists, meaning that for every dollar they spent lobbying, they received a staggering $1,909 in taxpayer funds in return.

Building weapons is only one way to make money from a war. Nearly as lucrative are the various service contracts awarded to support and often supplement the services overseas. The U.S. military now outsources many functions uniformed servicemembers once performed. The sprawling bases set up to support the wars were full of civilian contractors building facilities, delivering mail, operating dining facilities, and providing general logistical support. According to Bloomberg, the Pentagon spent $107.9 billion for service contracts in Afghanistan alone.

 

[Dayton3]

Reports and Analyses

Our reports and analyses highlight ways government isn’t best serving the people, and they recommend ways it can.

www.pogo.org

***snip***

While the United States didn’t win in Iraq or Afghanistan, American defense contractors and their shareholders certainly did. The American people paid approximately $14 trillion to fight the post-9/11 wars, about half of which went into the coffers of defense contractors who either supplied weapons and equipment or provided services to support the war and reconstruction efforts. William Hartung at the Center for International Policy recently reported that just the top five U.S. Pentagon contractors — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman — received more than $2.1 trillion worth of contracts during the post-9/11 spending surge. During the same time, the big five spent $1.1 billion for lobbyists, meaning that for every dollar they spent lobbying, they received a staggering $1,909 in taxpayer funds in return.

Building weapons is only one way to make money from a war. Nearly as lucrative are the various service contracts awarded to support and often supplement the services overseas. The U.S. military now outsources many functions uniformed servicemembers once performed. The sprawling bases set up to support the wars were full of civilian contractors building facilities, delivering mail, operating dining facilities, and providing general logistical support. According to Bloomberg, the Pentagon spent $107.9 billion for service contracts in Afghanistan alone.

Do you have any actual evidence any of that spending was excessive or unjustified?

Thought not.

 

[Batcat]

Do you have any actual evidence any of that spending was excessive or unjustified?

Thought not.

Yes. What did all that spending accomplish?

My approach is if a nation has to be attacked as Afghanistan did after 9/11, we go in and do what we do best. We excel at destroying stuff so we quickly put the nation we are attack back 100 years or so and we LEAVE. We suck at nation rebuilding.

We also warn the nation that if they force us to attack them again we will put them back in the Stone Age the nest time.

We would not be all that popular in the world but nations would quickly learn not to mess with us.

 

[Dayton3]

Yes. What did all that spending accomplish?

My approach is if a nation has to be attacked as Afghanistan did after 9/11, we go in and do what we do best. We excel at destroying stuff so we quickly put the nation we are attack back 100 years or so and we LEAVE. We suck at nation rebuilding.

We also warn the nation that if they force us to attack them again we will put them back in the Stone Age the nest time.

We would not be all that popular in the world but nations would quickly learn not to mess with us.

The U.S. doesn't do that anymore for reasons to lengthy to go into.

 

[ConserveGuy]

Unlike Trump, Biden does not kiss Putin's rear end. He called Putin a killer.

Gee I wonder why the Sleepy joe doesn't say about Xi... you just gave it away there. He is taunting Russia when things were in line when President Trump was in office. No invading then huh?

 

[Batcat]

The U.S. doesn't do that anymore for reasons to lengthy to go into.

I realize that. We wish to be seen as the nice guys in the white hats. Once we win a conflict we set about trying to improve things in the nation we basically destroyed.

We try to spread democracy across the globe to nations who lack the background to implement it. A lot of grift and corruption happens and a few greedy Americans profit by the effort but all too often it fails.

My approach would be far less expensive and quite possibly much more effective. Go in and do what ever is necessary to eliminate any threat the nation is to us and then get the hell out.

Nations would quickly learn not to mess with the U.S.

 

[Dayton3]

I realize that. We wish to be seen as the nice guys in the white hats. Once we win a conflict we set about trying to improve things in the nation we basically destroyed.

We try to spread democracy across the globe to nations who lack the background to implement it. A lot of grift and corruption happens and a few greedy Americans profit by the effort but all too often it fails.

My approach would be far less expensive and quite possibly much more effective. Go in and do what ever is necessary to eliminate any threat the nation is to us and then get the hell out.

Nations would quickly learn not to mess with the U.S.

I agreed with you but your expressed opinion is way too simplistic. The U.S. has since World War Two been given largely a free hand in using our military around the world. Other nations don't run to form alliances to oppose the U.S. just because U.S. troops are marching through Baghdad or Kabul or Belgrade. This basic faith is that the U.S. is not a conquering nation nor are we an avenging nation. Other nations assume (with varying degrees of accuracy) that when the U.S. uses force against another nation that at least on the surface our goals are for the betterment of the targeted nation as well. If we engaged in mass destruction of another nation that assumption would be gone for good.

 

[Batcat]

I agreed with you but your expressed opinion is way too simplistic. The U.S. has since World War Two been given largely a free hand in using our military around the world. Other nations don't run to form alliances to oppose the U.S. just because U.S. troops are marching through Baghdad or Kabul or Belgrade. This basic faith is that the U.S. is not a conquering nation nor are we an avenging nation. Other nations assume (with varying degrees of accuracy) that when the U.S. uses force against another nation that at least on the surface our goals are for the betterment of the targeted nation as well. If we engaged in mass destruction of another nation that assumption would be gone for good.

Under my approach we would only attack a nation that had in some way attacked us (9/11).

Under your approach we end up with situations like in the satirical novel and movie The Mouse that Roared.

The Mouse That Roared - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In passing, I realize my idea will never be implemented because our nation believes in helping other nations even those who attack us.

 

[No Sympathy]

Unlike Trump, Biden does not kiss Putin's rear end. He called Putin a killer.

That is probably the single dumbest thing you, as a leaders, could do or say to another leader.

It should nothing more then Joe Biden doesn't know how to handle himself when it comes to diplomatic issues and makes the US look bad.

Trump had his mistakes w/ Russia as well, but at least learn from those mistakes.