Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
In Reply To
Prefer to Remain Private

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: The World Wakes up to a Land War in Europe
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2022 at 12:33:36 pm EST (Viewed 262 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The World Wakes up to a Land War in Europe
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2022 at 06:38:15 am EST (Viewed 273 times)

    That already exists, it is called NATO, and they have been increasing troop presence on Eastern European members for a while now. They have also sent warships and planes to that area.

    They are clearly willing to engage in combat if a member nation's border is violated by the Russian military.

    That invalidates this sentence of yours:

    "Biden, and the European nations, are sniveling cowards."

I said: "He should (actually, already should have) built a coalition of freedom fighting democratic nations AND COORDINATED TO POSITION THE COALITION'S FORCES ****IN UKRAINE****."

All caps and asterisks added for emphasis.

Why did you truncate that important piece of my argument: that without, does not equal my argument anymore?

    These very public actions are not the act of someone sniveling, you just have an assumption and are working backwards to meet it.

They are the actions of a yellow bellow coward who is afraid to fight a much weaker and bully nation. Sending $200 million dollars worth of weapons, including missiles, takes zero balls.

    Because there is no way Putin could convince his people those are lies, and use it to drum up patriotic fervor, right?

    If they are only in Ukraine, even mentioning over throwing Russia, even to say you are not, is a bad idea.

It's a bad idea to inform Putin that you're only there to fight alongside Ukraine, but have no intention to overthrow his government or invade Russia? Really? That's a bad idea?

Break it down for everyone. Why is that bad?

    However, your whole question of "fighting or sanctions" is ridiculous.

    I would not be opposed to sending troops into Ukraine. Low levels at first, with potential increase. Too many at once does not say "we want to keep you out," it says "we want a war."

    It is not like you can't park troops across the border in Poland, and wait.

I'd be fine with that. We wouldn't have had to position everyone in Ukraine - we could have sent forces to a close enough neighbor like Poland, as you suggest. But I hardly see how a clear ramp up in forces so close to Russia would be viewed much differently when it's obvious that said forces were purposely transported and positioned to join and help Ukraine. Do you disagree? Do you think Putin would go: "Hmmm, all these forces are being positioned in Poland but not in Ukraine, so no telegraphed intentions; nothing to see here"?

    It also needs to be remembered that over the past 60 years, we have a pretty bad track record of using our military directly. Three wars that stretched over a decade, and one of them causing a power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS, and genocide.

    That is not even to say anything of the poor backing of Regan in the 80s that trained Bin Laden, and helped out Hussein as he fought Iran.

In my opinion, it doesn't need to be remembered for the current situation because this isn't an offensive strike, invasion, nation building effort, or attempt to thwart a coup - all of which seem why previous failures occurred from Central America to Africa, the Middle East, and Vietnam. Do you disagree?

To me, this is simply to preserve the existing government in Ukraine which is fully functional, peaceful, democratic; but is being destroyed by a bully country that wants their resources like locusts.

    That all has to be weighed against any military, and the fact that Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush II, Obama, Trump and Biden, all caused major failures, and long term problems for the US.

Not for this occasion it doesn't - not to me, at least. Ukraine isn't some country in South America, the Middle East, or Africa. They are part of the free world, stable, and trying to become a developed country.

    It does not mean you can't send in troops. It sure as Hell doe not mean that you can't send aid and arm them. It does mean you have to be smart about the actions.

    I don't think Putin is crazy enough to go nuclear, as some do. However, I do think he is sociopath enough to throw away countless Russian lives to antagonize the US, and keep them tied up for years. I think if he sees it as a legit war against The WEST in any form, he will go conscription.

    However, your whole question of "fighting or sanctions" is ridiculous.

    Logic of saying fight, while claiming you want to prevent conflict aside, there is no reason you can't do both.

Okay, to clarify, I'd agree that fighting + sanctions is a good way to proceed. When I said fighting OR sanctions, it was more of how I felt that Biden's administration is viewing options.

    Why could you not have troops on, and cut off monetary supply? Aside from the obvious, aside from the obvious fueling anti-American sentiment.

Good point, I'd agree.

    Which brings up a more important point, that made me think harder on the Ukraine. There a protests in Russia. The Russian people were threatened with arrest on TV for protesting the actions, and still came out in notable numbers.

    It is one of the first signs of real numbers in the country trying to break from Putin. Whatever happens, this needs to be encouraged, and grown. Whether that is our own form of cyber warfare getting images of Russia's actions or other forms, it is a good idea.

Good points.

    to summarize:
    -Fine with using troops, as long as it is done intelligently.
    -Fine with potential increase, when warranted.
    -Arming Ukraine is important.
    -Sanctions can be used in concert to cause double pain
    -Growing the resistance core against Putin needs to be looked in, for long term gains. Especially since his final term ends in two years, and that resistance could stop him from monkeying around with things to stay in power.

All good points. It seems we're not so different after all. But, our shared viewpoint is different from Biden's.