Members banned from this thread: LV426 |
I'd love to see regime change in Russia, since Putin is a war criminal. However, the immediate goal is simply to stop Russia's military expansionism. That's very much something that should be an objective for everyone on earth, because the precedent set here ends up mattering elsewhere. If Russia fails to acquire new territory, such that this is just a huge loss of life and national value for nothing, it sends a message around the world that military expansionism remains a counter-productive and doomed policy, so we'll see fewer such attempts. If, on the other hand, they come away with a bigger Russian empire as a reward for this lawbreaking, then that sends a signal that such a strategy can pay off, and we'll see more of it elsewhere -- e.g., China going after Taiwan, and maybe even eventually trying to swipe islands from Japan. So, we all have a vested interest in making sure this gamble fails for Russia.
That's the same reason that even if you, say, were wise enough to oppose Bush's regime-change invasion of Iraq, it was still possible to think that liberating Kuwait was a good policy, back in the early 1990's, because the world had to send a signal to other potential conquerors that military acquisition of new land was never going to be allowed to stand. Only if we send that message clearly and consistently will such gambits be kept from becoming commonplace. Every would-be expansionist needs to understand that the world will come together to make sure that plan fails.
- learn brevity/paragraphs. everytime i look at your posts is a freaking wall of partisan text.
Or such blandishment geopolitics it;s barely worth a response..
~~
Start here: Russia couldn't touch a NATO state if it wanted to and it doesn't
If you can't see the difference between Uk -with long established cultural, linguistic and economic ties to Russia...well join the club..i'll give you than much
I'm sitting around healing a swollen cornea after cataract surgery, I can give you the predicate for this war but it ain't "Russian empire" "expansionism" or any of that crap
It's because the USA turned Ukraine into a hostile defacto NATO state- intolerable for Russia
We are not in a hot war with Russia, as I said, if we were, fifty billion would a fraction of the cost, we spent over 300 million a day just to keep a presence in Afghanistan, so doing the math, how much do you think a full scale war would cost
Plus the Gov’t also shells out close to fifty billion a year to corporations, and last I knew they weren’t in war with anyone
corps have nothing to do with anything
~~
we dont have a zillion boots on the ground like we did Afghan -hence the costs
but the uber-weaponizaton of Afghan is similar in costs -
if different because we didn't have our advanced weaponry in Afghan
Between 2010 to 2012, when the US for a time had more than 100,000 soldiers in the country, the cost of the war grew to more than $100bn a year, -not too far off without the personnel..and more to come..
Austin: U.S. believes Ukraine 'can win' war against Russia -wise up
We're all confused, what's to lose?
You can call this all the United States Blues.
Wave that flag, wave it wide and high. (US Blues)
sticking your head in the sand
Is this a hot war? -yes
Did not a few let the cat out of the bag -it's about "degradng Russian military"
"victory" and "Putin must go? -yes
are we training Uk soldiers in the USA, sharing intel, sharing real time target acqusition -yes
training in Ukraine, sending our best weapons specific to countering Russian assets? - yes
It's everything but the boots -because we dont need the boots
You can employ the same scenario for just about any proxy war the U.S. has been involved in going back to the Monroe Doctrine, but only a handful of those turned into a “hot war.” If we were in a hot war with Russia it would be comparable to one of the World Wars, and fifty billion would be a drop in the bucket
Phantasmal (05-18-2022)
Friedman pointed to two recent leaks; one that the United States provided Ukrainian forces with intelligence used to kill Russian generals, and the second that America provided intelligence to Ukrainian forces to sink Russia’s Moskva, its flagship battleship.
Friedman reported how President Biden never intended for the U.S.’s involvement in these strikes to be known, and was "livid" when said knowledge became public.
"From everything I have been able to glean from senior U.S. officials, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, the leaks were not part of any thought-out strategy, and President Biden was livid about them," he wrote. "The staggering takeaway from these leaks is that they suggest we are no longer in an indirect war with Russia but rather are edging toward a direct war — and no one has prepared the American people or Congress for that."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-yo...uGrw6DSOdHvZ6Q
what?? we never shard target acquisition, real time intel and our best weapons with any other nation
No it's NOT comparable with "world war" those are wars with many countries involved
NATO isn't involved anything near to want we are. a few token weapons is about it
we are upto our eyeballs in this - and it's escalating, and we dont want peace because we never condition talks on weapons
I give you a bunch of evidence that shows we are depolying all of our war machine, less boots
into Ukraine -and the target is Russia. our Congress critters, POTUS and Defense officials have all said so
Bookmarks