War in Ukraine

#32,726
#32,726
#32,727
#32,727
I shouldn't be laughing about the situation, but it's highly comical watching pootin play wack a mole, thinking he's got it all under control, then another clown pops out of the car.
 
#32,728
#32,728
Rasputin_Vol said:
Let me save you the trouble. They would have been orchestrating it.

Now what does that have to do with anything? Does the State Department or US involvement in any way legitimatize or de-legitimize what is going on between Turkey and the Scandinavians right now? I'm not even sure why your State Department comment was made. Seems like a non sequitur...
Click to expand...
Because that's the type of comment I can see you making if this had been worked out beforehand like volG.R.U. suggested. You two were going to criticize it no matter how it unfolded.
 
#32,730
#32,730
volinbham said:
You've concluded no diplomacy would work. Fine if that's your opinion but we aren't even trying. What's the downside of trying to find a way to end this? He may be looking for a way out but we aren't even having the discussions.

My reaction is driven by the comments I see here about how this our chance to neuter Russia or bring it to it's knees; that suggests a conscious interest in keeping the conflict going rather than trying to find a way to end it quickly.

The comment about letting Ukrainians die is based in this strategy of bringing Russia to it's knees - we are letting the Ukraine do the dirty work by supplying them just enough weapons to keep fighting rather than trying to find a way to end it. This is going to drag out and more and more Ukrainians will suffer as a result.

Hell, even if we keep throwing money and weapons at Ukraine that doesn't stop us from trying the diplomatic route in tandem but we aren't even trying. I suspect it is because the strategy is to let the Ukraine fight our proxy war so we can stick it to the Ruskies without putting boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
Diplomacy implies the other side is willing to listen. You've concluded Putin is willing to be reasonable when nothing in his actions or past words seems to imply that.

Ukrainians are suffering because a would-be dictator has invaded their country. As much as Ras and some others would have you believe otherwise, it's not the fault of the U.S. We're not "letting" anyone die. These people are fighting for their country, and their lives, against a foreign invader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, pattiycake, FLVOL_79 and 6 others
#32,731
#32,731
DonjoVol said:
Gary Johnson really and truly was a clown. In reality he was part of the old Bush GOP wing.

Some people have claimed they were libertarian the past few years simply because they didn't want to identify as democrat or Republican. The problem is they are trying to bring those ideals with them and many of them do not line up with actual Libertarian principles.

Second. Many people claim they are libertarians because they say they are for small government. However, libertarianism is not the only political philosophy that believes in small government. If one actually would read Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater they will find out that he advocated for small government. From my understanding many conservatives at the time did as well. Therefore one main conservative principle is small government as well as individual liberty. However conservatism often gets mixed with religious right theocracy. Those are not the same political philosophy.
Click to expand...

The issue is "conservatives" are not conservative in the same way that Goldwater and Kirk were conservative. Small government is simply an excuse for opposing the left agenda whenever it's convenient. If you want to define conservatives as Republicans who stand for small government, then I would guess libertarians outnumber conservatives.

People who identify as conservative today typically have more to do with the religious right than they do small government and I think that's indisputable. I mean, how many pro-lifers are there vs. people clamoring for the military to be reasonably gutted and foreign policy scaled back?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#32,732
#32,732
volinbham said:
You've concluded no diplomacy would work. Fine if that's your opinion but we aren't even trying. What's the downside of trying to find a way to end this? He may be looking for a way out but we aren't even having the discussions.

My reaction is driven by the comments I see here about how this our chance to neuter Russia or bring it to it's knees; that suggests a conscious interest in keeping the conflict going rather than trying to find a way to end it quickly.

The comment about letting Ukrainians die is based in this strategy of bringing Russia to it's knees - we are letting the Ukraine do the dirty work by supplying them just enough weapons to keep fighting rather than trying to find a way to end it. This is going to drag out and more and more Ukrainians will suffer as a result.

Hell, even if we keep throwing money and weapons at Ukraine that doesn't stop us from trying the diplomatic route in tandem but we aren't even trying. I suspect it is because the strategy is to let the Ukraine fight our proxy war so we can stick it to the Ruskies without putting boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
You've basically said it better than I have thus far.
 
#32,734
#32,734
We've been reading all morning that 1750(ish) soldiers were pulled out of there. It's on every news channel. Here's one that might be more interesting to you. Biden is hesitant to arm ukraine to the point that they could go into russia uncontested.
 
#32,735
#32,735
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79, AM64, MontyPython and 1 other person
#32,736
#32,736
n_huffhines said:
The issue is "conservatives" are not conservative in the same way that Goldwater and Kirk were conservative. Small government is simply an excuse for opposing the left agenda whenever it's convenient. If you want to define conservatives as Republicans who stand for small government, then I would guess libertarians outnumber conservatives.

People who identify as conservative today typically have more to do with the religious right than they do small government and I think that's indisputable. I mean, how many pro-lifers are there vs. people clamoring for the military to be reasonably gutted and foreign policy scaled back?
Click to expand...
What many people don't realize is that Goldwater was against the religious right gaining power.
 
#32,737
#32,737
Rasputin_Vol said:
You sure about that? Or are we delaying the inevitable? All the se weapons and aid packages do is delay the outcome, but doesn't change the outcome. Meanwhile, we drag this out to the very last drop of Ukrainian blood.
Click to expand...

I do think Russia eventually takes Ukraine unless Putin is removed but once they occupy the country it will become a quasi Afghan/Vietnam scenario where there are constant losses and eventually it’s just not worth it and they leave. I don’t see a scenario where they engulf Ukraine into part of Russia long term.
 
#32,738
#32,738
NEO said:
I do think Russia eventually takes Ukraine unless Putin is removed but once they occupy the country it will become a quasi Afghan/Vietnam scenario where there are constant losses and eventually it’s just not worth it and they leave. I don’t see a scenario where they engulf Ukraine into part of Russia long term.
Click to expand...
Afghanistan/Vietnam don’t really apply. There is a way to deal with insurgencies and the answer is ethnic cleansing, which Russia is clearly willing to do. If Ukraine falls, it probably is permanent. Anything they cede in this war, they are not getting back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#32,739
#32,739
tvolsfan said:
Afghanistan/Vietnam don’t really apply. There is a way to deal with insurgencies and the answer is ethnic cleansing, which Russia is clearly willing to do. If Ukraine falls, it probably is permanent. Anything they cede in this war, they are not getting back.
Click to expand...

Vietnam would cool have won but chose not to but even if we had we would have still dealt with local insurrections continually. That is where my analogy begins and ends. I think there will be freedom fighters who never stop abs keep causing massive losses if Russia occupies.

I agree that if Ukraine falls it falls for good in the way it is now (which I believe the us wants to happen) and it maybe comes back as a new regime or handed evenly to local NATO members.
 
#32,743
#32,743
Weezer said:
Diplomacy implies the other side is willing to listen. You've concluded Putin is willing to be reasonable when nothing in his actions or past words seems to imply that.

Ukrainians are suffering because a would-be dictator has invaded their country. As much as Ras and some others would have you believe otherwise, it's not the fault of the U.S. We're not "letting" anyone die. These people are fighting for their country, and their lives, against a foreign invader.
Click to expand...

Putin doesn't have to be reasonable; he just has to perceive an advantage for himself. Without pursuing every diplomatic option we are guaranteed to never find something he may perceive so.

I never said it was our fault. I am saying that the sentiment I hear from some on this board and from some of our leaders is that this war helps us because it causes grave harm to Putin. Accordingly, feeding the war with weapons vs trying to ease the war with at least a concurrent and strong diplomatic effort appears to put our needs above those of the Ukrainians. My personal belief is we've made a calculus to use this as a proxy war and the longer it goes the more it helps us. I find that pretty deplorable.

What is the harm in an all out diplomatic effort?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and DonjoVol
#32,744
#32,744
I absolutely supported Ukraine but not open ended to the point of spending hundreds of billions of dollars. The US cannot fund neverending wars, NATO can if it feels so inclined to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DonjoVol
#32,749
#32,749
volfanhill said:
You wanted the previous idiot who claimed he wanted to spend more. So yes you have no right to biatch. Jesus man.
Click to expand...

To an extent I can understand why a businessman would see the need for stimulus of some sort when states were shutting things down. People had to have stuff to exist - one group always had government handouts, and another group can survive. The people in the middle often have neither the safety net nor the savings to get them through. Part 2 of the equation is that without, there's the distinct possibility of people losing housing, power, water, heat, etc; or the companies or individuals supplying the necessities and rentals going broke because their cashflow dried up. That kind of "stimulus" or emergency cash into pockets made a lot more sense than the "just because" 2008 stimulus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top