I love watching Russian tanks blow up. Worth every penny of tax dollars spent to make sure Russia remains an insignificant sh*thole.
p.s. The money is not just being given to Ukraine. Much of it is given to American companies employing American workers building American weapons that are being used to kill Russian soldiers. It would be a bargain at twice the price.
Too much money is being wasted on Ukraine.
As has been pointed out to you, the money allocated for aid and security of Ukraine (which is being provided by over 50 countries) is not being wasted. It is being spent to guarantee the security of Europe and to aid Ukraine defend itself against an invasion by America's (and Ukraine's) primary enemy Russia -- a country that currently routinely threatens America and its allies with nuclear weapons, and has been a hostile military enemy of the free world for over 70 years.
If you are praising money given to U.S. weapon manufactures, that is a loser philosophy. You are referring to Weapons Economics. In the long run Weapons Economics always ruins a nation.
I did some internet searches on the term "Weapons Economics" and was unable to find anything about it. I think you made the term up, or are confusing it with some other term.
What you may be trying to refer to is the Einstein quote: "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." I'm not sure that idea has proven to be true. I think the Cold War shows it to be false. In any case, it is a fact of life that nearly every country on earth must spend money on weapons, which requires purchasing weapons from independent weapons manufacturers. Americans have almost unanimously voted for large defense budgets for many decades now, and most Americans do not consider that a "loser philosophy." You are a tiny minority of Americans in your belief that US defense spending over the last 100 years has been a "loser philosophy."
Think of money that is not being spent on U.S. infrastructure in order to satisfy your bloodlust.
This argument -- that money spent on one thing is at the expense of spending money on another thing -- can be made for literally any expenditure there is. It's a catchy and almost ubiquitous argument, but has little real merit.
You can spend money on two things and they are not mutually exclusive. Money is being spent on US infrastructure. Aid to Ukraine does not affect that US infrastructure budget -- US infrastructure money is not being reallocated to Ukraine spending, and if Ukraine spending were stopped, that money would not necessarily go to US infrastructure. The reality of US government spending is not what you think or wish it was.
Global economy was not ruined by Russia crossing into Ukraine earlier this year.
No, the global economy was not ruined by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but it has been negatively affected.
Global economy is being ruined by U.S.' response to Ukraine Conflict. You are emotional and not very thoughtful.
No, the global economy is not being ruined by US aid to Ukraine, but it has been affected. How much it's been affected, and whether it's a negative or positive affect relative to the alternative -- no aid or less aid to Ukraine -- is matter of massive speculation with all kinds of hypotheticals and assumptions, and almost impossible to determine. That said, if in the end, Russia is significantly and permanently damaged in its ability to be an ongoing aggressive and threatening military power, it will be good for the global economy in the long run. A world with a significantly weakened (or better yet, destroyed) Russia, is a better world for everyone except Russians, and no one gives a rip about their future. They don't even seem to care themselves - nothing but a bunch of drunken, nihilistic serfs.
Limousine Liberals on this thread are full of it. When B.H.O. wisely declined to make a huge issue of Crimea, I recall only Lindsey G. and J. McCain begging for war. I assume all on this thread had access to a computer or smart phone, 2014. Chicken-hawk Biden wants war so then do chicken-hawk posters here. Btw., how many handles are you posting under on this thread? Obviously I change my handle, every so slightly to keep up with ... . I won't say. Obviously I am trying to to maintain the same handle. What about you?
Limousine Liberals on this thread are full of it. When B.H.O. wisely declined to make a huge issue of Crimea, I recall only Lindsey G. and J. McCain begging for war. I assume all on this thread had access to a computer or smart phone, 2014. Chicken-hawk Biden wants war so then do chicken-hawk posters here. Btw., how many handles are you posting under on this thread? Obviously I change my handle, every so slightly to keep up with ... . I won't say. Obviously I am trying to to maintain the same handle. What about you?
Limousine Liberals on this thread are full of it. When B.H.O. wisely declined to make a huge issue of Crimea, I recall only Lindsey G. and J. McCain begging for war. I assume all on this thread had access to a computer or smart phone, 2014. Chicken-hawk Biden wants war so then do chicken-hawk posters here. Btw., how many handles are you posting under on this thread? Obviously I change my handle, every so slightly to keep up with ... . I won't say. Obviously I am trying to to maintain the same handle. What about you?
It doesn't look like you responded to anything I posted. You seem frustrated. I'm not a liberal. I'm not sure you know what a chickenhawk is either.
I'm using one handle. Multi-handle people like AdultintheRoom and Lolly are usually easy to spot. (I have had to modify the handle over time - Bombah, Bomba, Bombo, Bomb - because someone here keeps registering them to block me.)
Limousine Liberals on this thread are full of it. When B.H.O. wisely declined to make a huge issue of Crimea, I recall only Lindsey G. and J. McCain begging for war. I assume all on this thread had access to a computer or smart phone, 2014. Chicken-hawk Biden wants war so then do chicken-hawk posters here. Btw., how many handles are you posting under on this thread? Obviously I change my handle, every so slightly to keep up with ... . I won't say. Obviously I am trying to to maintain the same handle. What about you?
It's amusing when you get all feisty. Next you'll go for the greatest hits like "feminine energy" or just suggest some casual genocide.
If true, Iran is really sticking its neck out -- they could now be considered combatants/belligerents in Ukraine. Soldiers on the battlefield is a lot different than supplying weapons.
At least 10 Iranians have been killed in attacks carried out by Ukraine against Russian-held positions while Tehran insists it is not providing Moscow with drones or military advisory support.
In theory, if Ukraine/U.S./N.A.T.O. get within 20K of Moscow, Russia would have no choice but to defend every cm of land and fight to the death over every cm, but with current conditions on the ground, fight, kill Ukrainian soldiers, retreat 20K, makes sense.
I've seen a lot of cope since February 24, but this has to be a world record in goalpost moving. If Ukraine gets within 20 kilometers of Moscow, then it will start fighting for real? Until then, it's all just tactical retreats? Hilarious.
Limousine Liberals on this thread are full of it. When B.H.O. wisely declined to make a huge issue of Crimea, I recall only Lindsey G. and J. McCain begging for war. I assume all on this thread had access to a computer or smart phone, 2014. Chicken-hawk Biden wants war so then do chicken-hawk posters here. Btw., how many handles are you posting under on this thread? Obviously I change my handle, every so slightly to keep up with ... . I won't say. Obviously I am trying to to maintain the same handle. What about you?
You can't even keep your own arguments straight -- are we limousine liberals (and what is your basis for the presumption of wealth?) or chicken hawks (and what is your presumption that those who aren't posting didn't serve)? Moreover, America isn't committing troops to the conflict, it is sending weapons and other aid so that is how we are participating.
As for Crimea versus the Special Murder Operation, it is quite likely (based on posts that have been made) that some or many of the posters voicing support for Ukraine here didn't agree with Obama's reaction to the annexation of Crimea. But as individuals we can't do much about it. Moreover, there is a big substantive difference between annexation of Crimea, which had only been handed over to Ukraine a few decades ago, and a bloody invasion of Ukraine which went beyond the eastern sections and has involved murder, rape, theft, and kidnapping.
. . . The Biden administration does not have any timeline for UA to take Kherson or to do anything. Biden admin just wants to see progress in UA's military campaign. If anything, the Biden admin wants a long drawn out conflict in order to severely impair RU's military. For all the talk about HIMARS and other US/EU military aid, the US has piles of weapons that could turn this conflict around in a hurry (predator drones, F16s, stealth bombers, Patriot missile systems, anti-ship missiles, etc.). The US has been very carefully measuring out military aid to make sure UA does not gain too much of an advantage both to keep RU from deploying low yield nukes and to make sure UA destroys as much of the RU armed forces as possible before a victory or peace deal.
Strategically, I'd expect western supporters of Ukraine including the Biden administration would like to see UA take Kherson and all land west of the Dnipro river before winter and gain at least a foothold on the east side. Russia will be aiming to improve their fortifications, supply lines, and quality of their defenders through the winter and it will be much more difficult to regain land after winter enforces a slowdown in offensive operations.
Aid to Ukraine has been measured for a few reasons. First, the west has been careful not to supply long range weapons that would enable significant attacks on Russian territory, likely provoking escalation of the conflict beyond Ukraine's borders. Second they've provided weapons systems that do not require extensive training for use or maintenance as would advanced NATO aircraft. Finally, they've been providing weapons systems that are appropriate to the current or evolving situation. Thus, for example, Predators, an expensive aircraft that is vulnerable to anti-aircraft systems doesn't make a lot of sense in an contested airspace, never mind that it violates the "long range" edict and requires non-trivial skills to operate and maintain.
If true, Iran is really sticking its neck out -- they could now be considered combatants/belligerents in Ukraine. Soldiers on the battlefield is a lot different than supplying weapons.
You may note that this thread started on March 17, several weeks after the actual invasion of Ukraine on Feb 24. The first thread, which was interesting because it had initial responses to the war, was deleted because it continually went off topic. Specifically, on the days before it was deleted, the thread had gone for multiple pages discussing Trump with no mention of the actual war. Agip was trying to get a new thread going.
You may note that this thread started on March 17, several weeks after the actual invasion of Ukraine on Feb 24. The first thread, which was interesting because it had initial responses to the war, was deleted because it continually went off topic. Specifically, on the days before it was deleted, the thread had gone for multiple pages discussing Trump with no mention of the actual war. Agip was trying to get a new thread going.
Grab the 1.99$/month limited offer from Atlas VPN here: https://get.atlasvpn.com/Denys By selecting the link you are not only getting a good product but also...
If true, Iran is really sticking its neck out -- they could now be considered combatants/belligerents in Ukraine. Soldiers on the battlefield is a lot different than supplying weapons.
Is there any lie that the Mossad makes up that you don't believe?
Hey fathead, the use of the words "Hoping this report is true" and "If true" would be indications to a normal person that I don't know if it's true (or not true).
YOU, on the other hand, appear to be 100% convinced that it is not true. I'd ask how you know with such conviction that Iran does not have soldiers in Crimea, but I know from experience that you NEVER answer direct questions examining your posts.
Remember when this war started and our right wing friends tried to blame it on the US and NATO? (if you don't just reread some of the comments). At that time Putin experts asserted that this had nothing to do with NATO but instead was Putin repeating Stalin's Ukranian genocide. A desire to eliminate the people, nation and culture.
Today, Russian state TV is regularly saying the Ukranian country and people should not exist and drowning them would be a possible way of winning. They are not even hiding it anymore.
There was never any doubt all Putin really wanted to do was wipe out Ukraine, Obviously that won't work so now the clown will be losing and looking stupid doing it.
As has been pointed out to you, the money allocated for aid and security of Ukraine (which is being provided by over 50 countries) is not being wasted. It is being spent to guarantee the security of Europe and to aid Ukraine defend itself against an invasion by America's (and Ukraine's) primary enemy Russia -- a country that currently routinely threatens America and its allies with nuclear weapons, and has been a hostile military enemy of the free world for over 70 years.
What has post-soviet Russia done to us recently to act as an aggressor?
Russia has certainly been the aggressor in several conflict, but none of them directed towards us and our allies.
We, on the other hand, insisted on expanding a military alliance that was directly opposed to Russia in all directions, eventually encircling Russia's borders with its members.
If the tables were turned, and Russia was leading an anti-American alliance that included Canada and Mexico, you wouldn't call that aggression? Would you not be threatened?
Russia has certainly been the aggressor in several conflict, but none of them directed towards us and our allies.
We, on the other hand, insisted on expanding a military alliance that was directly opposed to Russia in all directions, eventually encircling Russia's borders with its members.
I’m pretty sure the Russia aggression towards its neighbors that you describe in your first sentence is the very reason that countries have decided to join NATO. For very recent examples, see Sweden and Finland. Putin remains a master strategist.
Russia has certainly been the aggressor in several conflict, but none of them directed towards us and our allies.
We, on the other hand, insisted on expanding a military alliance that was directly opposed to Russia in all directions, eventually encircling Russia's borders with its members.
I’m pretty sure the Russia aggression towards its neighbors that you describe in your first sentence is the very reason that countries have decided to join NATO. For very recent examples, see Sweden and Finland. Putin remains a master strategist.
Can you be more specific? What acts of aggression are you referring to?
Almost 1.5 million Ukrainians were left without power after Russia unleashed a volley of cruise missiles on Saturday—the latest salvo in a campaign to deprive the country of heat and light as winter sets in.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
