Will UkraIne be the Ukrainians own Vietnam? Why Does Russia have Veto over US arms sales?

[Seymour Flops]

In Vietnam, our fighter won every battle. Especially the very decisive Battle of Hue City, known in the media as the "Tet Offensive."

The general and the politicians back home lost that war, by losing the will to win it, apparently pretty early on, according to the Pentagon Papers.

The Ukrainian military is in a similar position, willing to fight and win, but without the support from the U.S. that they would need. That's why I say it might be Ukraine's own Vietnam.

Russia seems to have drawn a "red line," that does not allow the U.S. to give weapons and support to the Ukrainians in their fight against this invading force. Somehow, our president honors that red line.

Why?

What gave Putin the authority to decide whether the U.S. gives arms aid to a country that is eager to have it? Are we really afraid that Putin will attack NATO if we do that? They are unable to win against Ukraine, how are they gonna win against NATO? Most of their forces are committed in Ukraine and are being dwindled by the lightly armed Ukrainian resistance fighters.

I'm not saying put boots on the ground and fight Russia ourselves. I'm saying that there is a market for our weapons in Ukraine and if we aren't selling to them, that amounts to coming down on the Russian side.

Why would we do that?

 

[daveman]

Easy. Putin owns Biden. Well, there's a timeshare with China and Iran, too.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

In Vietnam, our fighter won every battle. Especially the very decisive Battle of Hue City, known in the media as the "Tet Offensive."

The general and the politicians back home lost that war, by losing the will to win it, apparently pretty early on, according to the Pentagon Papers.

The Ukrainian military is in a similar position, willing to fight and win, but without the support from the U.S. that they would need. That's why I say it might be Ukraine's own Vietnam.

Russia seems to have drawn a "red line," that does not allow the U.S. to give weapons and support to the Ukrainians in their fight against this invading force. Somehow, our president honors that red line.

Why?

What gave Putin the authority to decide whether the U.S. gives arms aid to a country that is eager to have it? Are we really afraid that Putin will attack NATO if we do that? They are unable to win against Ukraine, how are they gonna win against NATO? Most of their forces are committed in Ukraine and are being dwindled by the lightly armed Ukrainian resistance fighters.

I'm not saying put boots on the ground and fight Russia ourselves. I'm saying that there is a market for our weapons in Ukraine and if we aren't selling to them, that amounts to coming down on the Russian side.

Why would we do that?

We won the Tet Offensive. Smashing. Decisively. Walter Kronkite knew that such a victory would give the war momentum so he lied and reported it as an American loss. The most trusted name in news lied.

 

[Death-Ninja]

Biden, is obscenely corrupt, he has taken tens of millions of dollars in cash from both China, and Russia, along with raping the shit out of Ukraine, and of course selling out the national security of the United States to anyone who can ante up cash! What you observe in Ukraine, is Biden making excuses for his very intentional sandbagging of Ukrainian's, first making a big show out of all the aid we are sending them, then turning right around and either slow-walking that aid, or never, ever sending it at all!

You can see this awareness emerging across the senate, where senators and congressman, are now demanding to know where the aid goes, and when, and why it doesn't go? The answer is simple, Biden needs Putin to negotiate him a totally phony nuke deal with Iran, indeed Americans are not involved in those negotiations at all, it between Russia, and Iran. That is right, Russia negotiates his, and John Kerry's totally fraudulent nuke deal for them, with Iran regarding Iranian nukes, the same Russia Biden declares war criminals, and whatever the fuck else he manages to dredge up.

That is why Russia gets to veto Biden, and they know they have the veto, and Biden knows they have the veto, and this is why Biden lies and lies and lies, we're sending this, and we're sending that, but out of a so-called $14-billion aid package the psychopath signed, not even $1-billion total has actually been sent! Its a fucking obscenity, and so to are the phony sanctions, those do not harm Russia, or Putin, they are fully intended to harm you, and me, and they are, big time, so big time are they, that the United States is now facing "food shortages" for the first time in over a hundred years!

There are reasons why the fascist democrats want you crippled, first they know we cannot afford to pack up into auto's and go hunt them all down and kill them, secondly, by starving you to death, they won't need to release much more in the highly virulent bio-attack bag of tricks locked down by Fauci and Gates!

 

[Donald H]

In Vietnam, our fighter won every battle. Especially the very decisive Battle of Hue City, known in the media as the "Tet Offensive."

The general and the politicians back home lost that war, by losing the will to win it, apparently pretty early on, according to the Pentagon Papers.

The Ukrainian military is in a similar position, willing to fight and win, but without the support from the U.S. that they would need. That's why I say it might be Ukraine's own Vietnam.

Russia seems to have drawn a "red line," that does not allow the U.S. to give weapons and support to the Ukrainians in their fight against this invading force. Somehow, our president honors that red line.

Why?

What gave Putin the authority to decide whether the U.S. gives arms aid to a country that is eager to have it? Are we really afraid that Putin will attack NATO if we do that? They are unable to win against Ukraine, how are they gonna win against NATO? Most of their forces are committed in Ukraine and are being dwindled by the lightly armed Ukrainian resistance fighters.

I'm not saying put boots on the ground and fight Russia ourselves. I'm saying that there is a market for our weapons in Ukraine and if we aren't selling to them, that amounts to coming down on the Russian side.

Why would we do that?

Wouldn't you say that the Ukraine has already lost? And they will lose even bigger if Russia turns to using nuclear weapons.

However, even the use of tactical nukes probably won't ever equal the slaughter of people in Vietnam or Iraq.

If Russia uses a nuclear weapon on the Ukraine, do you think that the US/Nato will use one on Russia?

Would America use only one?

Would America turn to full on deployment of nuclear weapons on Russia?

I'm sort of the opinion that Russia will eventually use a nuclear weapon, but America won't respond in kind.

I can give my reason for saying that if anyone asks in an acceptable way.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Wouldn't you say that the Ukraine has already lost? And they will lose even bigger if Russia turns to using nuclear weapons.

However, even the use of tactical nukes probably won't ever equal the slaughter of people in Vietnam or Iraq.

If Russia uses a nuclear weapon on the Ukraine, do you think that the US/Nato will use one on Russia?

Would America use only one?

Would America turn to full on deployment of nuclear weapons on Russia?

I'm sort of the opinion that Russia will eventually use a nuclear weapon, but America won't respond in kind.

I can give my reason for saying that if anyone asks in an acceptable way.

I agree with all that, if you substitute "weapons of mass destruction" for nukes. If U.S. and European aid makes it more likely that Ukraine will survive long enough to expel Russia, I don't believe that Putin will accept that. He will use some form of WMD. I think it would be more likely to be chemicals than nukes.

But, I would like to know your reason for saying why the U.S. will not respond in kind. I am unsure what I think about that.

 

[Donald H]

I agree with all that, if you substitute "weapons of mass destruction" for nukes. If U.S. and European aid makes it more likely that Ukraine will survive long enough to expel Russia, I don't believe that Putin will accept that. He will use some form of WMD. I think it would be more likely to be chemicals than nukes.

But, I would like to know your reason for saying why the U.S. will not respond in kind. I am unsure what I think about that.

If Russia had to use a tactical nuke against the Ukraine, I don't think the US would respond with nukces against Russia because that would men MAD.

Another way of saying it that will be more acceptable to you would to change Russia using a tactical nuke to Israel or America and the victim country being Iran. Russia wouldn't hit the US because of MAD.

It's my speculation or prediction only and not an attempt to fight a silly armchair war.

 

[bendog]

If Russia had to use a tactical nuke against the Ukraine, I don't think the US would respond with nukces against Russia because that would men MAD.

Another way of saying it that will be more acceptable to you would to change Russia using a tactical nuke to Israel or America and the victim country being Iran. Russia wouldn't hit the US because of MAD.

It's my speculation or prediction only and not an attempt to fight a silly armchair war.

Why would Russia "have to use a tactical nuke against Ukraine"? Russia could simply leave Ukraine, and the conflict would end.

 

[Donald H]

Why would Russia "have to use a tactical nuke against Ukraine"? Russia could simply leave Ukraine, and the conflict would end.

I answered your question in good faith but if you just wanted to spam the thread then I'm not interested.
You decide and then ask the question is an appropriate way.

I said:

I'm sort of the opinion that Russia will eventually use a nuclear weapon, but America won't respond in kind.

I can give my reason for saying that if anyone asks in an acceptable way.

 

[bendog]

I answered your question in good faith but if you just wanted to spam the thread then I'm not interested.
You decide and then ask the question is an appropriate way.

I said:

You never answered the question in this thread. If I asked you this on another thread, I don't recall your answer. In any event, Putin has no legit reason to use a nuclear weapon in a war he started, because nuclear weapons are only acceptable in self defense, and I've no interest in redoing WWII

 

[Donald H]

You never answered the question in this thread. If I asked you this on another thread, I don't recall your answer. In any event, Putin has no legit reason to use a nuclear weapon in a war he started, because nuclear weapons are only acceptable in self defense, and I've no interest in redoing WWII

The Ukraine started the war in 2014 and likely before, at the urging of America.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If Russia had to use a tactical nuke against the Ukraine, I don't think the US would respond with nukces against Russia because that would men MAD.

Another way of saying it that will be more acceptable to you would to change Russia using a tactical nuke to Israel or America and the victim country being Iran. Russia wouldn't hit the US because of MAD.

It's my speculation or prediction only and not an attempt to fight a silly armchair war.

Sure, I get you. I have no reason to disagree with that.

 

[Donald H]

Sure, I get you. I have no reason to disagree with that.

Thank you. My main purpose was to illustrate the possible failing of the MAD factor.

And then, could there be any way of drawing a line between small tactical nukes and others?

 

[Ringo]

The entire collective West supplies Ukraine with weapons so that they fight with Russia.
Why does Russia not supply weapons to the basques and catalans? Why not help Argentina bring the Malvinas Islands home? Why not help revive the IRA in Northern Ireland? And how many times have Indians of different tribes declared their independence from the United States? Why not help in the right case? Etc.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Thank you. My main purpose was to illustrate the possible failing of the MAD factor.

And then, could there be any way of drawing a line between small tactical nukes and others?

Not really.

My concern now is the predictions that if we supply Ukraine with enough weapons, they could win. I don't believe Putin would accept a loss and I dont believe he would ever surrender alive.

We also have that idiot Milley saying Ukraine could weaken the security of all of Europe.

 

[Rigby5]

In Vietnam, our fighter won every battle. Especially the very decisive Battle of Hue City, known in the media as the "Tet Offensive."

The general and the politicians back home lost that war, by losing the will to win it, apparently pretty early on, according to the Pentagon Papers.

The Ukrainian military is in a similar position, willing to fight and win, but without the support from the U.S. that they would need. That's why I say it might be Ukraine's own Vietnam.

Russia seems to have drawn a "red line," that does not allow the U.S. to give weapons and support to the Ukrainians in their fight against this invading force. Somehow, our president honors that red line.

Why?

What gave Putin the authority to decide whether the U.S. gives arms aid to a country that is eager to have it? Are we really afraid that Putin will attack NATO if we do that? They are unable to win against Ukraine, how are they gonna win against NATO? Most of their forces are committed in Ukraine and are being dwindled by the lightly armed Ukrainian resistance fighters.

I'm not saying put boots on the ground and fight Russia ourselves. I'm saying that there is a market for our weapons in Ukraine and if we aren't selling to them, that amounts to coming down on the Russian side.

Why would we do that?

Wrong.
We won a few battles in Vietnam, but we constantly lost because there was nothing there for us.
There was nothing to gain and no one wanted us there.
There was never any possible means of achieving anything except for abusing the Vietnamese.

The Ukrainians are not winning anything.
They are constantly losing more people, equipment, and territory.
And the Ukraine is not buying any equipment.
It is all costing the US billions.
Nor is it legal to arm belligerents who illegally started this war by deliberately violating treaties with Russia.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't believe that Putin will accept that. He will use some form of WMD. I think it would be more likely to be chemicals than nukes.

Wrong.
No one has ever found a way to successfully use chemical weapons.
They are more expensive, short lived, and less lethal than explosives.

The Iranians use cyanide on Halabja in 1988, but that was because they did not have explosives or artillery at the time.

 

[krichton]

US still sending whatever weapons we have to spare past the date of this post so Im not sure where this opinion is coming from.