Should the US shed blood for Ukraine

Should the USA along with NATO defend Ukraine with troops.

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 40.4%

  • No

    Votes: 59 59.6%
  • Total voters
    99
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Jimdamick said:
Now with the backing of China, I think Putin will take the opportunity, a once in a lifetime opportunity, to expand into Ukraine.
China has agreed to allowing a 40% increase in gas supply thru the Trans-Siberian pipeline, almost negating the effects of an EU embargo on Russian gas.
1st thing, and I don't think but know that Trump, as fucking always fucked it up & started this ball rolling.,
Before Trump, things weren't great between Russia/China (we've been fucking with them both for decades, deservedly so), & the US, but nothing like today.
Trump allowed Russia to take Crimea because he's a loud-mouthed cunt that Russia laughed at because Putin knew the very obvious fact that Trump was a loud-mouthed cunt & all they had to do was kiss Trumps ass/tell him he's a genius & give him a soccer ball and they could & did do whatever the fuck they wanted.
And then there's China, whom in their eyes was insulted by Trump's ineffective tariff, and one thing you do not do is cause them to lose face.
They will not forgive or forget.
So that fucking idiot Trump set the stage for all of this, the threat of the invasion of Ukraine & creating a situation that united our two main adversaries against us.
This is fucking huge.
Oh yea, & then there is the little matter of Taiwan.
If Russia takes Ukraine, say goodbye to Nationalist China.
The allure/opportunity of taking both Ukraine & Taiwan I think will be too good to pass up.
If I was a madman like Putin I would invade
He'll never get another opportunity like this.

View attachment 5082419
Click to expand...
If your belief is that China and Russia will cooperate to invade Ukraine, then with that untested axiom in place, yeah, together they could probably weather whatever the US and NATO alliance can do. Together, they can pretty much rampage across that tiny nation. I don't know what the Chinese government gets out of that, and so that needs explaining.

That kind of vertical alliance between two large absolutist authoritarian regimes that are also in competition with each other is not very stable. So I'm not going there with you. I hope we can agree to disagree on whether or not this is an important topic of discussion.

I do agree with you about Trump. Trump was Putin's and his oligarch's money launderer. He was always their puppet. He's not in power now, though he did manage to weaken NATO. I think Putin is testing the strength of the NATO and is finding he stepped in it. He's dangerous because he can't afford to look foolish, so, I concede there is a chance that he does something violent for the sake of appearance.

There are many other possibilities that would be bad for Ukraine. For example, with Russia's help, the separatist movement inside Ukraine manages to take control and split away from the majority of the country. Then they can join with Russia. Whatever happens, this isn't a good thing. But I don't think the majority in Ukraine want to be under Russian control. Russia isn't able to mount the kind of effort required to put them there either.

Biden, on the other hand can make good political hay out of all of this and I think that is his strategy.
 
Last edited:
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
smokinrav said:
So...uh....the cost of defending Kuwait leading to Bushwar1 and Bushwar 2 was worth it?
Click to expand...
That's not quite what happened though. It wasn't just "defending Kuwait". We had oil dollars signs in our eyes which corrupted every segment of our involvement. But, it's a good point to bring up. If we're only able to operate in this world as giant pieces of shit not being any different from Iraq or Russia, then we should stay at home. Because my motives come from the thought that the old school US still exists somewhere, a nation that fought for what was right, a people that wanted to fight for what was right. If that idea completely dead and if we're completely dead inside, then no it's not worth it, we should let Russia kill people and take their land, because the last thing the Ukrainians need is two entities doing the same things to them. One would be enough.
 
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
I suspect many see the EU as the future and the RU as a doomed past.
Click to expand...
Yes. They want to join and were on their way. Then the Dutch (founder eu, veto right) held a referendum, and we set fuck 'm, they're basically Russians. When you ask people if they are for or against something they don't really understand, most will vote against solely to to feel they are in control. After that we ditched referendums.

www.theguardian.com

Dutch referendum voters overwhelmingly reject closer EU links to Ukraine

Two-thirds of voters oppose political, trade and defence treaty, showing strength of Eurosceptic feeling in the Netherlands
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

If anything it was more about the EU already being way larger than intended. Ukrainians have a bad name here though.

Fogdog said:
The war everybody talks about will not happen.
Click to expand...
*spoiler alert*
 
Last edited:
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
Yes. They want to join and we're on their way. Then the Dutch (founder eu, veto right) held a referendum, and we set fuck 'm, they're basically Russians. When you ask people if they are for or against something they don't really understand, most will vote against solely to to feel they are in control. After that we ditched referendums.

www.theguardian.com

Dutch referendum voters overwhelmingly reject closer EU links to Ukraine

Two-thirds of voters oppose political, trade and defence treaty, showing strength of Eurosceptic feeling in the Netherlands
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

If anything it was more about the EU already being way larger than intended. Ukrainians have a bad name here though.


*spoiler alert*
Click to expand...
It takes a long time and is an insane process. Start now and you're there in maybe two decades if you're at full throttle. The right thing right now is skepticism and a rejection of too much too soon. It's a game of change and patience.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
That's not quite what happened though. It wasn't just "defending Kuwait". We had oil dollars signs in our eyes which corrupted every segment of our involvement. But, it's a good point to bring up. If we're only able to operate in this world as giant pieces of shit not being any different from Iraq or Russia, then we should stay at home. Because my motives come from the thought that the old school US still exists somewhere, a nation that fought for what was right, a people that wanted to fight for what was right. If that idea completely dead and if we're completely dead inside, then no it's not worth it, we should let Russia kill people and take their land, because the last thing the Ukrainians need is two entities doing the same things to them. One would be enough.
Click to expand...
When I was a boy, world was better spot
What was so was so, what was not was not
Now, I am a man, world have changed a lot
Some things nearly so, others nearly not

There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know
Very often find confusion
In conclusion, I concluded long ago


I kind of agree with you but the old school US was still vile in some ways, just not as much as our enemies back then. So, maybe 60/40? Most fought for what was right and many fought for other less worthy reasons? Kind of like today, when most don't support Trump and his fascists while a large minority do.

This whole shitstorm between US-NATO and Russia with Ukraine as a proxy conflict makes the GOP and their pro-Russian stance look pretty bad.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
When I was a boy, world was better spot
What was so was so, what was not was not
Now, I am a man, world have changed a lot
Some things nearly so, others nearly not

There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know
Very often find confusion
In conclusion, I concluded long ago


I kind of agree with you but the old school US was still vile in some ways, just not as much as our enemies back then. So, maybe 60/40? Most fought for what was right and many fought for other less worthy reasons? Kind of like today, when most don't support Trump and his fascists while a large minority do.

This whole shitstorm between US-NATO and Russia with Ukraine as a proxy conflict makes the GOP and their pro-Russian stance look pretty bad.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's the big problem with maga. Sure we did some great things and flourished, but much of it was on the backs of women and minorities. Was it a win or a loss? Was it both? Shit's always murky when humans are involved.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
why not? there is no way vlad can afford a protracted conflict, no matter how large his military is. soldiers you can't afford to buy ammo for are reduced to chucking rocks, and getting killed....
if he invades and is repelled, he probably won't have the resources to invade again..it would actually be a good time to invade russia...just sayin, solve multiple problems at once...install the leader of Ukraine as the president of russia, and allow them free and fair elections, with no candidates getting poisoned, or locked up...clean up the russian mafia, shut down the oligarchs, seize all russian owned property all around the world, and return most of it to the russian state when they have a fairly elected president
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
why not? there is no way vlad can afford a protracted conflict, no matter how large his military is. soldiers you can't afford to buy ammo for are reduced to chucking rocks, and getting killed....
if he invades and is repelled, he probably won't have the resources to invade again..it would actually be a good time to invade russia...just sayin, solve multiple problems at once...install the leader of Ukraine as the president of russia, and allow them free and fair elections, with no candidates getting poisoned, or locked up...clean up the russian mafia, shut down the oligarchs, seize all russian owned property all around the world, and return most of it to the russian state when they have a fairly elected president
Click to expand...

1644434618420.png
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Meanwhile the USA militarily occupies most of the world and goes apeshit if anyone tries to violate the magical Monroe Doctrine.
Click to expand...
Your expectation of perfection has never existed. Take yourself for example; a taxpayer that is fully against taxation. Whether or not the US does shitty things is irrelevant as to whether or not the US should help stop shitty things. The method that you suggest here, where you shouldn't do something right until everything you do is right, would result in a ridiculous amount of violence and death, something you also claim to be against.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
why not? there is no way vlad can afford a protracted conflict, no matter how large his military is. soldiers you can't afford to buy ammo for are reduced to chucking rocks, and getting killed....
if he invades and is repelled, he probably won't have the resources to invade again..it would actually be a good time to invade russia...just sayin, solve multiple problems at once...install the leader of Ukraine as the president of russia, and allow them free and fair elections, with no candidates getting poisoned, or locked up...clean up the russian mafia, shut down the oligarchs, seize all russian owned property all around the world, and return most of it to the russian state when they have a fairly elected president
Click to expand...
Dear President Biden, I strongly request that you remove Roger's name from the list of potential candidates for Secretary of Defense.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
Take yourself for example; a taxpayer that is fully against taxation.
Click to expand...
You assume much.

I assume a raped person being against rape meets with your approval?

Also, what are you still doing here? Figured you would be on the way to fight those nasty Russians!
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You assume much.

I assume a raped person being against rape meets with your approval?

Also, what are you still doing here? Figured you would be on the way to fight those nasty Russians!
Click to expand...
Your selective quoting is precious and I know you pay taxes. One way or another, you pay some form as taxation.

If rape is bad, then a person doing the raping is doing something bad and that same person preventing another rape is a good thing. I don't know why it's confusing, unless of course you were into rape, then doing nothing means you can keep raping and also don't have to prevent rape. It's a great way for there to be two bads, instead of one bad and one good, again assuming you were into rape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top