Ukraine / Russia

We stayed for about 15 years too long for some damn reason.🤑
it’s almost like Afghanistan being called a graveyard of empires should’ve been a red flag not to dwell there too long.

Also another shining example of the terrible idea of nation building and “you break it you buy it”.
 
Rhcuam said:
After seeing Russia stumble and bumble their way through Ukraine, do you honestly believe they have the capabilities to touch the United States.
Come on man. Their getting a bogged down in a neighboring country with a military a quarter of what their’s is, yeah there a huge danger to the US.
Click to expand...
So is your position that we should reduce military spending wholesale because there are not legitimate threats that make those expenditures necessary?
 
Rhcuam said:
After seeing Russia stumble and bumble their way through Ukraine, do you honestly believe they have the capabilities to touch the United States.
Come on man. Their getting a bogged down in a neighboring country with a military a quarter of what their’s is, yeah there a huge danger to the US.
Click to expand...

If they did not have nuclear weapons, I could see your viewpoint.

But they do, and very likely some of them will go bang if used.
 
My worldview…… that will probably be pretty tough to explain and take more time than I’m willing to put into trying to explain it to you on this forum. Maybe over a root beer someday.
I’ll try to provide a quick summary.

I have no problem with our current military spending. Even though it is outrageously large sum it provides us with the best military in the world. which certainly has it advantages and grants us a certain amount of protection.
Nation building is a waste of resources and a proven loser.
We are not the world police. The US people and Government seem to care greatly about people in Ukraine. They do not seem to care about the atrocities in Yemen. Or that Turkey routinely bombs and slaughters civilian targets. What do you do though. 🤷🏿

Just because we wasted unknown trillions in Afghanistan does not justify wasting on trillions in Ukraine.

I understand that $1 billion is pocket change and most folks here wouldn’t stop to pick it up if they saw it in grocery store parking lot. I don’t expect 1 billion to repair and replace all the infrastructure in the U.S. but it could probably help out a lot of people and places.
 
Last edited:
406dn said:
If they did not have nuclear weapons, I could see your viewpoint.

But they do, and very likely some of them will go bang if used.
Click to expand...
If they start launching nukes around the globe all bets are kind of off then. With the most likely outcome of it not being good for anyone.

On that same note, a destabilized Russia gives me great concern about their nuclear arsenal as well.
 
Rhcuam said:
Nation building is a waste of resources and a proven loser.
Click to expand...
Your worldview characterizes the Marshall Plan as a "waste" and "a proven loser"?
Most historians tout that as expensive, but not wasted, and as an investment in winning European financial stability and building back national pride for several countries.
It has remained as a model, albeit expensive for the US, and as a long but worthy path to freedom and some form of democracy for many peoples.
 
Straight Arrow said:
Your worldview characterizes the Marshall Plan as a "waste" and "a proven loser"?
Most historians tout that as expensive, but not wasted, and as an investment in winning European financial stability and building back national pride for several countries.
It has remained as a model, albeit expensive for the US, and as a long but worthy path to freedom and some form of democracy for many peoples.
Click to expand...
I guess your right it worked very well in 1948.
Not so much in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Cambodia.
But yeah it worked great in World War II. Not so much in current times or attempts. Just because something worked one time 70 years ago, it does not mean we should ignore every time it’s failed since then.
 
Rhcuam said:
I guess your right it worked very well in 1948.
Not so much in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Cambodia.
But yeah it worked great in World War II. Not so much in current times or attempts. Just because something worked one time 70 years ago, it does not mean we should ignore every time it’s failed since then.
Click to expand...
Nail on the head. It's like watching your favorite team play the same play over and over again when the D caught on about 3 years ago. Fans screaming, not that again, as it gets stuffed.
 
Rhcuam said:
I guess your right it worked very well in 1948.
Not so much in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Cambodia.
But yeah it worked great in World War II. Not so much in current times or attempts. Just because something worked one time 70 years ago, it does not mean we should ignore every time it’s failed since then.
Click to expand...
Just as we should not ignore the one time it did work. Was the objective the same in each of the ones you cite and was the leadership the same. Are we o.k. letting Russia have Ukraine--what about Finland, they haven't joined Nato yet.

Cheesehead said:
I strongly feel that this is a substantially under appreciated risk. People keep wishing Putin gets a bullet in the back of the head but underappreciate the risks of what comes after.
Click to expand...

This possibly could happen via sniper, but internally, Putin has spend years organizing against a coup, especially from the military. He has set up 4 different agencies ( FSB, GRU, SUR, FPS ) and his long time friend Zolotov is the head of all four. The FPS is like our Secret Service, only we have approx 5000 in that agency and he has approx 20,000 in the FPS. He has also openly made sure everyone in these agencies know there are "friends" in each agency who will tell him if someone is considering organizing a coup.

And as stated above--Putin gone --now what !! I have a strong distaste for Putin and would love to see him and Zolotov disappear, but like Cheesehead, if it happen, I would be holding my breath while waiting to see if his replacement is sane, or at the very least any better than Putin.
 
Rhcuam said:
I guess your right it worked very well in 1948.
Not so much in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Cambodia.
But yeah it worked great in World War II. Not so much in current times or attempts. Just because something worked one time 70 years ago, it does not mean we should ignore every time it’s failed since then.
Click to expand...
As a Vietnam Veteran I have watched that nation evolve. Although politically not yet democratic, yet in reality much more like Los Angeles than Beijing. Not too many years ago capitalistic South Vietnam led the world in golf course startups. The tourism, manufacturing, and export economies have flourished as a result of western influence. I like my clothing manufactured in Vietnam. I saw it evolving even back during my two tours there and certainly apparent as I left in 1971, despite the popular attitude that we "lost" the war. My sense of duty admittedly has difficulty accepting that attitude ... my problem, I guess.
Agreed, Iraq is a total mess but primarily due to the diverse political / religious influences. However, the populaces of both Iraq and Iran embrace western values and I predict someday will be much more democratic. Afghanistan is likewise a mess and will be indefinitely, but with the global influence will change similarly due to capitalistic influence. Cambodia's mess is a real quagmire, but also not immune or any longer isolated from the world's strong influence.
Thus I disagree with your basic tenet disapproving of reaching out with vast wealth and influence for nation building to enhance the lives of less fortunate. Furthermore, isolationism from global interactions and growing external influences is not practical, economically healthy, or strategically sound policy.
 
Randi said:
Just as we should not ignore the one time it did work. Was the objective the same in each of the ones you cite and was the leadership the same. Are we o.k. letting Russia have Ukraine--what about Finland, they haven't joined Nato yet.



This possibly could happen via sniper, but internally, Putin has spend years organizing against a coup, especially from the military. He has set up 4 different agencies ( FSB, GRU, SUR, FPS ) and his long time friend Zolotov is the head of all four. The FPS is like our Secret Service, only we have approx 5000 in that agency and he has approx 20,000 in the FPS. He has also openly made sure everyone in these agencies know there are "friends" in each agency who will tell him if someone is considering organizing a coup.

And as stated above--Putin gone --now what !! I have a strong distaste for Putin and would love to see him and Zolotov disappear, but like Cheesehead, if it happen, I would be holding my breath while waiting to see if his replacement The reason it worked one time was due to numerous social, economic, and societal reasons is sane, or at the very least any better than Putin.
Click to expand...
The reason it worked ones was largely due to economic and societal reasons that were only present in Japan, Germany, and Europe.

It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to see why it didn’t work in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Haiti, Cambodia, etc.
Given Ukraine‘s history of corruption and miss management of funds I don’t see it working in Ukraine.

Russia is far from having Ukraine. But if you’re asking my opinion it’s not even my in my top 5 things to worry about as a nation. A Russian occupancy of Ukraine is going to be very similar to the Russian occupancy of Afghanistan. And if Ukraines European neighbors are concerned about it they can sure open up their checkbooks and continue funding Ukraine. But that is very doubtful considering they won’t even get off the teat of Russian oil. So they do care, just not enough to not to have the house at a comfy 77°.

And as far as Putin getting taken out from the inside given that two Russian oligarchs and families have died under mysterious and brutal murder suicides in the last week or so. I’m guessing he’s purging those who he does not believe is 100% behind him and then sending a message to others.
 
Last edited:
Straight Arrow said:
As a Vietnam Veteran I have watched that nation evolve. Although politically not yet democratic, yet in reality much more like Los Angeles than Beijing. Not too many years ago capitalistic South Vietnam led the world in golf course startups. The tourism, manufacturing, and export economies have flourished as a result of western influence. I like my clothing manufactured in Vietnam. I saw it evolving even back during my two tours there and certainly apparent as I left in 1971, despite the popular attitude that we "lost" the war. My sense of duty admittedly has difficulty accepting that attitude ... my problem, I guess.
Agreed, Iraq is a total mess but primarily due to the diverse political / religious influences. However, the populaces of both Iraq and Iran embrace western values and I predict someday will be much more democratic. Afghanistan is likewise a mess and will be indefinitely, but with the global influence will change similarly due to capitalistic influence. Cambodia's mess is a real quagmire, but also not immune or any longer isolated from the world's strong influence.
Thus I disagree with your basic tenet disapproving of reaching out with vast wealth and influence for nation building to enhance the lives of less fortunate. Furthermore, isolationism from global interactions and growing external influences is not practical, economically healthy, or strategically sound policy.
Click to expand...
I certainly appreciate and respect your service over there. I don’t think “we” Lost in Vietnam. I think you all completed your mission. The south Vietnam government could only be propped up for so long. Very similar to the Afghani government.

I’m not a total isolationist. If we’re just hell bent as a nation on nation building maybe we should pick some closer to home. There are several countries to the south that are essentially third world war torn countries.
 
Rhcuam said:
There are several countries to the south that are essentially third world war torn countries.
Click to expand...
On that we are in complete agreement. I would submit that the US has the capacity to contribute significantly everywhere across this shrinking globe. With respect to nation building and helping less fortunate, there is certainly a target-rich environment globally. And, to which I'm pretty sure you agree, other wealthy nations should step up much more support to join the efforts as well.
 
406dn said:
Since we are all over the map on everything remotely connected to the Russian/Ukrainian war...the election results in France suggest that there remains a commitment to Ukraine, at least in France.

LaPen occupies a similar political lane as Trump. I thought she might make it a closer election than it actually turned out. From what I read, Macron is not all that popular either. So, we aren't the only country where the public has to pick the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...
Looks like it was pretty close until her votes started disappearing. Who knows what to believe

1650936500870.png

1650936570491.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,698
Messages
2,235,164
Members
38,986
Latest member
lcboyer3

Share this page

Back
Top