Russia

[Decked]

15 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

 

Good.  Send more.  What's your tax break going to be if we send zero?  What's it going to cost us in the long run to bail out on our allies?   You do realize that GDP is measured over a set period of time right?  So if you're going to say we already sent more than $61 billion you're going to have to also say our GDP has also increased.  That's how they come to a percentage of GDP.

Racking up massive debt is going to come for us all. It’s about becoming a more fiscally responsible nation and policy across the board. Cutting out large swaths of funding from the federal sector. Obviously by my statements I think this is a larger threat to us than Russia. 
 

again, given their location to Russia those countries should be paying a lot more. 

[Scarlet]

2 minutes ago, Decked said:

Racking up massive debt is going to come for us all. It’s about becoming a more fiscally responsible nation and policy across the board. Cutting out large swaths of funding from the federal sector. Obviously by my statements I think this is a larger threat to us than Russia. 
 

again, given their location to Russia those countries should be paying a lot more. 

It's going to cost us more in the long run if Russia marches all the way to the Polish border.  It's myopic to believe it won't.  I guess if we bail out of NATO and green light Putin to continue on, in the short term it won't.  What an economic disaster that would be though.  

 

Look at that chart again.  The European countries are paying more of their share than we are.  Hopefully they'll also ramp up beyond what they are already doing.  Putin's expansionist threat should have woken the entirety of Europe now.  

 

Let's say Ukraine can't retake all the territory Russia has pillaged from them. (That's not a given. We fought a war and won against all odds ourselves).  Wouldn't supporting Ukraine enough so that they can harden their defenses to a point where Putin doesn't take the whole of the country be a better option than completely bailing out?  I think we're forgetting the mass genocide and the humanitarian crises that will ensue if he does.  I've see estimates of upwards of 20 million Ukrainians will flee the country.  What a disaster.  That's a destabilizing event for Europe.  A destabilized Europe destabilizes the entire world.  We've seen that before. 

 

None of that even addresses our loss of credibility internationally.  Let's not forget the Budapest memorandum.  We guaranteed Ukraine's security if they gave up their nukes. They did.  Now we're going back on our word.  Good luck making agreements internationally now.  There will come a day when we need to use our credibility in negotiations but soon there won't be any left.

 

This is absolutely in our national security interests.  National security unfortunately isn't free.  How did our isolationism go in the lead up to WWII?

 

I get the national debt is serious.  But not funding Ukraine isn't going touch that. In fact, not doing so will ultimately exasperate the problem in more ways than one.

[commando]

we can send thousands of blackhawks to ukraine at no "real" cost to us.   they are sitting in the desert doing nothing...as are many tanks, bradleys, strykers, etc, etc...   we have already paid for them now they are outdated and sitting in the desert doing nothing.    the real cost to us would be keeping them stocked with ammo...but i guess we keep those old vehicles out there because of the sunk cost in them    

[Decked]

5 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

It's going to cost us more in the long run if Russia marches all the way to the Polish border.  It's myopic to believe it won't.  I guess if we bail out of NATO and green light Putin to continue on, in the short term it won't.  What an economic disaster that would be though.  

 

Look at that chart again.  The European countries are paying more of their share than we are.  Hopefully they'll also ramp up beyond what they are already doing.  Putin's expansionist threat should have woken the entirety of Europe now.  

 

Let's say Ukraine can't retake all the territory Russia has pillaged from them. (That's not a given. We fought a war and won against all odds ourselves).  Wouldn't supporting Ukraine enough so that they can harden their defenses to a point where Putin doesn't take the whole of the country be a better option than completely bailing out?  I think we're forgetting the mass genocide and the humanitarian crises that will ensue if he does.  I've see estimates of upwards of 20 million Ukrainians will flee the country.  What a disaster.  That's a destabilizing event for Europe.  A destabilized Europe destabilizes the entire world.  We've seen that before. 

 

None of that even addresses our loss of credibility internationally.  Let's not forget the Budapest memorandum.  We guaranteed Ukraine's security if they gave up their nukes. They did.  Now we're going back on our word.  Good luck making agreements internationally now.  There will come a day when we need to use our credibility in negotiations but soon there won't be any left.

 

This is absolutely in our national security interests.  National security unfortunately isn't free.  How did our isolationism go in the lead up to WWII?

 

I get the national debt is serious.  But not funding Ukraine isn't going touch that. In fact, not doing so will ultimately exasperate the problem in more ways than one.

Surrounding countries should indeed be paying more. Just like they should’ve been fully funding NATO before this and became weak, degraded militaries (not all of them I know).  Instead they let the USA do their funding into NATO. Ukraine has a 0.00% chance of reclaiming their former territory. They’ve lost too many men, supplies, & equipment will not and cannot come in enough quantity to match their goals. Their counter offensive failed. The only hope they have of winning is to outlast the Russians with a much higher kill ratio and bleed them. They are still going to lose more land. This will come to the negotiating table and Russia will take (well continue to take) Crimea, Donetsk, & other potential regions. 

[commando]

8 minutes ago, Decked said:

Surrounding countries should indeed be paying more. Just like they should’ve been fully funding NATO before this and became weak, degraded militaries (not all of them I know).  Instead they let the USA do their funding into NATO. Ukraine has a 0.00% chance of reclaiming their former territory. They’ve lost too many men, supplies, & equipment will not and cannot come in enough quantity to match their goals. Their counter offensive failed. The only hope they have of winning is to outlast the Russians with a much higher kill ratio and bleed them. They are still going to lose more land. This will come to the negotiating table and Russia will take (well continue to take) Crimea, Donetsk, & other potential regions. 

i am glad the French didn't take your attitude in 1776

[teachercd]

13 minutes ago, commando said:

we can send thousands of blackhawks to ukraine at no "real" cost to us.   they are sitting in the desert doing nothing...as are many tanks, bradleys, strykers, etc, etc...   we have already paid for them now they are outdated and sitting in the desert doing nothing.    the real cost to us would be keeping them stocked with ammo...but i guess we keep those old vehicles out there because of the sunk cost in them    

This would be GREAT to do especially if Ukraine could use these things to take an offensive stance.  

[ZRod]

40 minutes ago, commando said:

we can send thousands of blackhawks to ukraine at no "real" cost to us.   they are sitting in the desert doing nothing...as are many tanks, bradleys, strykers, etc, etc...   we have already paid for them now they are outdated and sitting in the desert doing nothing.    the real cost to us would be keeping them stocked with ammo...but i guess we keep those old vehicles out there because of the sunk cost in them    

We keep them for the same reason Russia did. If we get into deep s#!t something is better than nothing.

[Moiraine]

It’s really weird to me that we refer to dictators as strong men when they are the literal opposite of that. 

 

They are so weak they can’t allow people with opinions to live, and they have minions doing all the dirty work for them. They are the epitome of what it is to be a weak man.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Moiraine said:

It’s really weird to me that we refer to dictators as strong men when they are the literal opposite of that. 

 

They are so weak they can’t allow people with opinions to live, and they have minions doing all the dirty work for them. They are the epitome of what it is to be a weak man.

It's no different than people who think a controlling husband is a strong leader.  When, in fact, a strong husband is one that has the confidence to support his wife and allow her to do what she wants and have her own opinions.

[teachercd]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's no different than people who think a controlling husband is a strong leader.  When, in fact, a strong husband is one that has the confidence to support his wife and allow her to do what she wants and have her own opinions.

So your wife has your password info, huh?

 

 

 

 

I kid, I kid.

[Decked]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

It’s really weird to me that we refer to dictators as strong men when they are the literal opposite of that. 

 

They are so weak they can’t allow people with opinions to live, and they have minions doing all the dirty work for them. They are the epitome of what it is to be a weak man.

1000%. This is why they promote yes men instead of great men. 

[GSG]

4 minutes ago, Decked said:

1000%. This is why they promote yes men instead of great men. 

 

“Exactly, because that’s who Corporate America wants—people who seem like bold risk takers, but never actually do anything. Actually doing things gets you fired.” - Barney Stinson 

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, GSG said:

 

“Exactly, because that’s who Corporate America wants—people who seem like bold risk takers, but never actually do anything. Actually doing things gets you fired.” - Barney Stinson 

I am a HUGE "yes man" at work.  

I have always been worried about not agreeing with my bosses.  I just pretty much assume that they are either right or that giving my opinion won't matter anyway.  

 

Sometimes I hate it but it almost always keeps me out of "the web" of an angry boss.

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Decked said:

Surrounding countries should indeed be paying more. Just like they should’ve been fully funding NATO before this and became weak, degraded militaries (not all of them I know).  Instead they let the USA do their funding into NATO. Ukraine has a 0.00% chance of reclaiming their former territory. They’ve lost too many men, supplies, & equipment will not and cannot come in enough quantity to match their goals. Their counter offensive failed. The only hope they have of winning is to outlast the Russians with a much higher kill ratio and bleed them. They are still going to lose more land. This will come to the negotiating table and Russia will take (well continue to take) Crimea, Donetsk, & other potential regions. 

 

As mentioned, surrounding countries are indeed paying their share, and like it or not the NATO alliance is designed for cumulative military/economic response, so smaller and more vulnerable nations don't have to maintain economy-crippling militaries that don't stand a chance on their own. If you really want to crunch the numbers, NATO ends up being a trade partnership as well, with many benefits to the U.S. economy. 

 

I think the scenario you describe is likely, and should not be considered a failure of the investment. The mission, as you recall, was to avoid the immediate sack of Kiev and Russian control of the entire Ukraine, either the first step in Putin reconstituting the Soviet Union, or a huge flex for a dictator who wishes the West nothing but harm. Should Zelensky come to the table with a face-saving concession for Putin, it will still leave the vaunted Russian military hugely diminished and exposed, and Putin looking that much weaker in the late-stages of his kleptocracy. It will also leave Ukraine free and autonomous, and prevent the anxiety of awaiting Putin's next move against NATO, which could have a much higher bill. 

[BigRedBuster]

43 minutes ago, teachercd said:

So your wife has your password info, huh?

 

 

 

 

I kid, I kid.

Well, she does have the pass code to my phone.  But, if she ever used it to try to control what I do, that would be an example of a controlling wife.