Post Right Wing looniness here

Garmel said:
I don't think honoring security arrangements includes pouring billions of dollars into a lost cause.
Click to expand...

Two points. First, it depends on what the cause is. If it's total Russian defeat and ouster from all Ukrainian territory, then yes, it's probably lost. But if the cause is avoiding total annexation of Ukraine or avoiding it turning into a thug-driven Russian satellite (like Belarus), that cause isn't lost.

Second, if you're going to fall on your sword, do it for something big. This shouldn't be worth it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Two points. First, it depends on what the cause is. If it's total Russian defeat and ouster from all Ukrainian territory, then yes, it's probably lost. But if the cause is avoiding total annexation of Ukraine or avoiding it turning into a thug-driven Russian satellite (like Belarus), that cause isn't lost.

Second, if you're going to fall on your sword, do it for something big. This shouldn't be worth it.
Click to expand...

If this keeps going without a treaty Ukraine will probably be absorbed completely or at least a very large chunk of it will be. Ukraine will eventually run out of manpower.
 
huisache said:
I thought defending democracies and honoring collective security arrangements was a Republican priority.
As for the military industrial complex, it won WW II against the wishes of some isolationist elements but most of us are resigned to a lot of misappropriation if the job gets done

and I resent the high jacking of the thread. I did not know anything about that woman before
Click to expand...

Neocon priority. They have only controlled the Republican Party for a time. It is going away.
 
Garmel said:
If this keeps going without a treaty Ukraine will probably be absorbed completely or at least a very large chunk of it will be. Ukraine will eventually run out of manpower.
Click to expand...

Ukraine will lose a whole generation of its youth from death, injury, emigration, or destroyed psyche. But at least DC politicians got more rich! It is well worth it to them.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Two points. First, it depends on what the cause is. If it's total Russian defeat and ouster from all Ukrainian territory, then yes, it's probably lost. But if the cause is avoiding total annexation of Ukraine or avoiding it turning into a thug-driven Russian satellite (like Belarus), that cause isn't lost.

Second, if you're going to fall on your sword, do it for something big. This shouldn't be worth it.
Click to expand...

Russia was ready to negotiate 2 months into the conflict. Talks started with Ukraine before they had taken any land or very little. But Boris Johnson acting on behalf of Biden told Zelensky to stop negotiations. As a result they lost all of Donbas and 2 more provinces.

The US pouring money and weapons into Ukraine is a sick sick joke at this point. It enriches heads of state and impoverishes Ukrainians and Americans alike.
 
Of course. The country that launched the invasion and bombing was the reasonable party that was ready to negotiate in good faith.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Of course. The country that launched the invasion and bombing was the reasonable party that was ready to negotiate in good faith.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I was making a point that Ukraine doesn't need more American treasure to keep Russia from taking compete control of their country.

And it is a fact that Russia and Ukraine started negotiations early on. I don't get why you ignore that.
 
Monahorns said:
I didn't say that. I was making a point that Ukraine doesn't need more American treasure to keep Russia from taking compete control of their country.

And it is a fact that Russia and Ukraine started negotiations early on. I don't get why you ignore that.
Click to expand...

If you're not saying that Russia was a good faith negotiator, then there's little point in your comment. The presence of negotiations doesn't mean Ukraine had the means to keep Russia out on its own and certainly doesn't mean Russia couldn't have turned Ukraine into another Belarus. Almost every conflict has some side negotiations very early on and usually before military action.

Also the US was giving aid to Ukraine before the invasion.
 
Monahorns said:
Well Deep State priorities which filled to the brim with Progressive Democrats.

More Ds voted for this than Rs. So overall, Johnson is doing the Ds and the Deep State's bidding.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the Speaker of the House is the speaker of the whole House. The majority of the House and the majority of the Republican Conference want to assist Ukraine. I know you don't like that, but it is the truth. It's not a "Democratic priority." It's an American priority. A relatively small group opposes it and are pissing their pants over it.

And of course, it's a bit of a joke to play the partisanship card when you're on the side that's relying on almost the entire Democratic caucus to do its dirty work like it did with McCarthy. Johnson needs about 10 Democrats to keep his job. MTG needs about 205 of them to kick him out.
 
Garmel said:
If this keeps going without a treaty Ukraine will probably be absorbed completely or at least a very large chunk of it will be. Ukraine will eventually run out of manpower.
Click to expand...

There will be a treaty (or an armistice), but the terms of it will be very important and will depend on who has the upper hand. To put it into our usual context of discussion as to avoid any ambiguities, they're going to determine whether Putin just gets to put the tip in or whether he gets to go balls deep. I'm cheering for Team Tip. Obviously Monahorns is cheering for Balls Deep with no KY and preferably in the rear.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's an American priority. A relatively small group opposes it and are pissing their pants over it.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but it's the side that will more than likely be correct when the smoke clears. How does Ukraine win a war of attrition against an enemy that has 3 times its population?

Sorry, man but 10 years from now people will be laughing at this boondoggle.
 
Garmel said:
Maybe so but it's the side that will more than likely be correct when the smoke clears. How does Ukraine win a war of attrition against an enemy that has 3 times its population?

Sorry, man but 10 years from now people will be laughing at this boondoggle.
Click to expand...
Ukraine has had the benefit of out-corrupting Russia in terms of paying politicians in the West.
 
Mr. Deez said:
If it's total Russian defeat and ouster from all Ukrainian territory, then yes, it's probably lost.
Click to expand...
Unless the entire world isolated Russia economically it was never going to happen. Eastern Europe has every reason to be afraid of Russian aggression.
 
Garmel said:
Maybe so but it's the side that will more than likely be correct when the smoke clears. How does Ukraine win a war of attrition against an enemy that has 3 times its population?

Sorry, man but 10 years from now people will be laughing at this boondoggle.
Click to expand...

Noninterventionists will, but that's because they have the luxury of never having to deal with the consequences of their policy, so they can just Monday morning quarterback everything and poke fun at anything that doesn't turn out perfectly. The reason why is that no one of influence listens to them, and they don't listen, because the last time they did get their way, 75 million people got killed.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Noninterventionists will, but that's because they have the luxury of never having to deal with the consequences of their policy, so they can just Monday morning quarterback everything and poke fun at anything that doesn't turn out perfectly. The reason why is that no one of influence listens to them, and they don't listen, because the last time they did get their way, 75 million people got killed.
Click to expand...

I'm hardly a noninterventionist. I fully support Israel monetarily but you have to see this Ukraine thing for what it is.

Please tell me you're not trying to make a WWII reference. Putin doesn't have the military power to go Hitler on us. He couldn't take on the combined European NATO members much less if we got involved as well. He can't "march on Europe" as the neocons are saying because he doesn't have the ability to do so.

Now, if Putin attacks NATO then it's on like Donkey Kong but Ukraine is just another ******** Eastern European kleptocracy. We wouldn't care about it but because our politicians are pilfering it we do.

We should have set up peace treaty between the two countries. Like Mona said we had a chance at the beginning but the neocons couldn't stand it. This is a no win situation for Ukraine and eventually they will surrender.

I agree we should have intervened in Hitler's rise to power. This isn't the same situation.
 
Last edited:
mchammer said:
Insane:

North Carolina High School Student Suspended Over Use Of "Illegal Alien" | ZeroHedge
Click to expand...

Horn6721 said:
mc
That is insane. Hasn't Illegal Alien been used in government language?
Click to expand...

Yes, because illegal alien the official term for someone who either illegally entered a foreign nation or stayed longer than legally allowed to. A foreigner who is following the laws is called an immigrant.

A lot of people confusingly use the phrase illegal immigrant. That phrase combines actions of following a host country's immigration laws and breaking a host country's immigration laws, which isn't possible. One is either following the immigration laws or not.
 
Mr. Deez said:
If you're not saying that Russia was a good faith negotiator, then there's little point in your comment. The presence of negotiations doesn't mean Ukraine had the means to keep Russia out on its own and certainly doesn't mean Russia couldn't have turned Ukraine into another Belarus. Almost every conflict has some side negotiations very early on and usually before military action.

Also the US was giving aid to Ukraine before the invasion.
Click to expand...

Russia only negotiates in bad faith... They are bad so the only answer is war. C'mon. This isn't logical.

Boris Johnson admits that negotiations were happening and that he ended them. Does that mean peace would have been negotiated? No one knows. But putting obstacles in the way of peace is immoral. Period. Let the talks happen and see what happens.

"The presence of negotiations doesn't mean Ukraine had the means to keep Russia out on its own". You statement begs multiple questions. Also, it ignores the fact that negotiations themselves are a means to keep Russia out on it own. Belarus hasn't had a generation of young men killed or emigrated, so they are in a better position than Ukraine at this point.

I am very aware that the US was shipping weapons into Ukraine since 2014. The Biden family has been at the center of that for the whole time, and Victoria Nuland. It was the weapons ("aid") that convinced Russia to attack.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Keep in mind that the Speaker of the House is the speaker of the whole House. The majority of the House and the majority of the Republican Conference want to assist Ukraine. I know you don't like that, but it is the truth. It's not a "Democratic priority." It's an American priority. A relatively small group opposes it and are pissing their pants over it.

And of course, it's a bit of a joke to play the partisanship card when you're on the side that's relying on almost the entire Democratic caucus to do its dirty work like it did with McCarthy. Johnson needs about 10 Democrats to keep his job. MTG needs about 205 of them to kick him out.
Click to expand...

Oh really? The majority of Republicans don't want to assist Ukraine.



It is a Democratic priority. Look at the vote. 100% of Democrats voted for it. Republicans have a responsible to use their power to do what their voters want. However Neocons are basically Democrats at this point. The "Speaker odf the whole House". That is hilarious. You know a Democrat Speaker would cram through every Democrat priority possible. This is betrayal against Republican voters.

How do you think that I am on the side of Democrats when a majority of Republicans voted against this and 100% of the Democrats voted for it? Remember we are talking about Ukraine right now. I'm on the conservative, liberty side and I always will be on every issue.
 
Here is another Democrat that is on your side not mine. The facts of this issue are that you are on the side of Bill Clinton and the Democrats.

 
Mr. Deez said:
There will be a treaty (or an armistice), but the terms of it will be very important and will depend on who has the upper hand. To put it into our usual context of discussion as to avoid any ambiguities, they're going to determine whether Putin just gets to put the tip in or whether he gets to go balls deep. I'm cheering for Team Tip. Obviously Monahorns is cheering for Balls Deep with no KY and preferably in the rear.
Click to expand...

That last sentence is simply slander and insult. The rest of it ignores the facts since at least 2014.

I really don't know why you value Ukraine over America. We need to fix our country. It is in real danger. We don't have time to fight wars on the other side of the world anymore, if we ever did in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top