Possible WW3 thread

[sys]

how many dead ukrainians is ukrainian land worth seems like a question for ukraine to decide, imo.

[Cire]

More Ukrainians would be raped, torched and dead than if we weren’t loading them up to defend themselves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/drfarls/status/1575114866431381505

[bucket]

To preserve peace the U.S should have granted Petoria half of Joe's pool.

[star seed 7]

how many dead ukrainians is ukrainian land worth seems like a question for ukraine to decide, imo.

Nic/dax, I'm interested in what your rebuttal to this is?

[star seed 7]

Also, I think it's fair to point out that while dax is a full blown Russian propagandist, Nic has always been a fairly steady isolationist libertarian.

[nicname]

how many dead ukrainians is ukrainian land worth seems like a question for ukraine to decide, imo.

Nic/dax, I'm interested in what your rebuttal to this is?

My rebuttal would be that it's obviously the Ukrainian leadership's decision. I believe Ukraine and Russia would have already reached peace, but for us and our NATO bros (mainly just us) propping up the Ukrainian forces and in my understanding squelching peace talks. It would have been less than are already dead, a more stable region, and lessened nuclear threat.

I don't think a weakened Russia is all that important as some have stated as a side-goal. Russia has been and would have continued to be weak in most all areas outside of nuclear armament and military size and scope.

Make no mistake. Should this conflict be prolonged indefinitely, wave after Russian military wave will come, and many many more Ukrainians and Russians will die and have their lives ruined. This includes regular military, civilians and conscripted fighters non of whom will have "decided" how many is too many.

Poor men, women and children die and have their lives ruined for the ends of the rich and powerful.

[Cire]

Russia tazed their balls off before any American stuff could get there because they couldn’t feed/gas/resupply their forces after 1 week.

Ukraine stood up and halted the drive to Kiev and Kharkiv on their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dal9]

don't eff with sleepy joe

His name is Dark Brandon.

just straight bragging about bumping off Pub congresspeople   

https://news.yahoo.com/wheres-jackie-biden-seeks-lawmaker-180159300.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABSAByobrr9JYJXybPqlxkaNge6lOWGz9HO-Jvij6GHtIzkZZhnC6tYJXBKTj4PPB-uGZRdo_ork17JaGz7WPE1mvLmA08YIQvyT-w7Ge5GMav02Fm7QMjt0wfUj8Ts9kjlkmDvd57jvTZMEKDyfxCLDZ2TjDppyybFbG2hKWy6o

[Pete]

Someone please tell me why my statement is unfounded or unreasonable. emojis aren't going to cut it.

Ukraine wants its land back and some atonement for the raping torture looting and we get to bleed out the Russian bear without firing a shot.  This is inevitable now

This is a valid argument, though one I don't agree with. The deaths of countless soldiers, many of whom will undoubtedly be conscripted, as well as more and more civilians just isn't worth it for me.

What's the appropriate amount of death and destruction for you Pete?

How much death and destruction is only part of the bigger question, and misses the point.  But, first we would have to agree on whether you think fascism is good or bad. If you prefer fascism over democracy (like MAGA does), then there is nothing to debate.  We simply disagree on the way the world should work.

If you reject fascism and favor democracy, then I think the real question to discuss is “how big do I think the risk is that a bad guy/country out there might make me feel like I live in Russia?” I think it’s big enough of a risk to justify our current costs.

I believe that the folks in the NSA, pentagon, CIA, state department, defense contractors, and all those same types of people in other counties, etc. agree with me.  None of these folks think this is only about saving Ukrainians. Many of those folks probably don’t think it has anything do to with Ukrainian souls at all.

Those folks are thinking about what they want the world to be like, or more importantly what they want their own lives to be like.  Most of them say they do not want it to be like Russia, and don’t want to live in a society like that. Most want to live in a a free democracy.

They also think unless to they stop the bad guys, the bad guys will make their lives like living in Russia someday (maybe their grandkids but whatever)

So, we have to commit resources to keep our chances of living in a free democracy as high as we can…balancing the costs with the benefits and risks. Again, because we don’t want to live like Russians, and we know those fuckers and others like them will make us unless we stop them.

[Cire]

Someone please tell me why my statement is unfounded or unreasonable. emojis aren't going to cut it.

Ukraine wants its land back and some atonement for the raping torture looting and we get to bleed out the Russian bear without firing a shot.  This is inevitable now

This is a valid argument, though one I don't agree with. The deaths of countless soldiers, many of whom will undoubtedly be conscripted, as well as more and more civilians just isn't worth it for me.

What's the appropriate amount of death and destruction for you Pete?

How much death and destruction is only part of the bigger question, and misses the point.  But, first we would have to agree on whether you think fascism is good or bad. If you prefer fascism over democracy (like MAGA does), then there is nothing to debate.  We simply disagree on the way the world should work.

If you reject fascism and favor democracy, then I think the real question to discuss is “how big do I think the risk is that a bad guy/country out there might make me feel like I live in Russia?” I think it’s big enough of a risk to justify our current costs.

I believe that the folks in the NSA, pentagon, CIA, state department, defense contractors, and all those same types of people in other counties, etc. agree with me.  None of these folks think this is only about saving Ukrainians. Many of those folks probably don’t think it has anything do to with Ukrainian souls at all.

Those folks are thinking about what they want the world to be like, or more importantly what they want their own lives to be like.  Most of them say they do not want it to be like Russia, and don’t want to live in a society like that. Most want to live in a a free democracy.

They also think unless to they stop the bad guys, the bad guys will make their lives like living in Russia someday (maybe their grandkids but whatever)

So, we have to commit resources to keep our chances of living in a free democracy as high as we can…balancing the costs with the benefits and risks. Again, because we don’t want to live like Russians, and we know those fuckers and others like them will make us unless we stop them.

But Russia is bigger and has nukes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cire]

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1575065334201012226?s=46&t=56LvPf2DoP-fqU2K7WxqNw

Wave after wave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nicname]

Someone please tell me why my statement is unfounded or unreasonable. emojis aren't going to cut it.

Ukraine wants its land back and some atonement for the raping torture looting and we get to bleed out the Russian bear without firing a shot.  This is inevitable now

This is a valid argument, though one I don't agree with. The deaths of countless soldiers, many of whom will undoubtedly be conscripted, as well as more and more civilians just isn't worth it for me.

What's the appropriate amount of death and destruction for you Pete?

How much death and destruction is only part of the bigger question, and misses the point.  But, first we would have to agree on whether you think fascism is good or bad. If you prefer fascism over democracy (like MAGA does), then there is nothing to debate.  We simply disagree on the way the world should work.

If you reject fascism and favor democracy, then I think the real question to discuss is “how big do I think the risk is that a bad guy/country out there might make me feel like I live in Russia?” I think it’s big enough of a risk to justify our current costs.

I believe that the folks in the NSA, pentagon, CIA, state department, defense contractors, and all those same types of people in other counties, etc. agree with me.  None of these folks think this is only about saving Ukrainians. Many of those folks probably don’t think it has anything do to with Ukrainian souls at all.

Those folks are thinking about what they want the world to be like, or more importantly what they want their own lives to be like.  Most of them say they do not want it to be like Russia, and don’t want to live in a society like that. Most want to live in a a free democracy.

They also think unless to they stop the bad guys, the bad guys will make their lives like living in Russia someday (maybe their grandkids but whatever)

So, we have to commit resources to keep our chances of living in a free democracy as high as we can…balancing the costs with the benefits and risks. Again, because we don’t want to live like Russians, and we know those fuckers and others like them will make us unless we stop them.

I believe that threat is negligible.

[catastrophe]

how many dead ukrainians is ukrainian land worth seems like a question for ukraine to decide, imo.

Nic/dax, I'm interested in what your rebuttal to this is?

My rebuttal would be that it's obviously the Ukrainian leadership's decision. I believe Ukraine and Russia would have already reached peace, but for us and our NATO bros (mainly just us) propping up the Ukrainian forces and in my understanding squelching peace talks. It would have been less than are already dead, a more stable region, and lessened nuclear threat.

I don't think a weakened Russia is all that important as some have stated as a side-goal. Russia has been and would have continued to be weak in most all areas outside of nuclear armament and military size and scope.

Make no mistake. Should this conflict be prolonged indefinitely, wave after Russian military wave will come, and many many more Ukrainians and Russians will die and have their lives ruined. This includes regular military, civilians and conscripted fighters non of whom will have "decided" how many is too many.

Poor men, women and children die and have their lives ruined for the ends of the rich and powerful.

On what terms would Ukraine and Russia have reached peace with fewer dead in this fantasy of yours where Ukraine gets no aid?

[nicname]

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1575065334201012226?s=46&t=56LvPf2DoP-fqU2K7WxqNw

Wave after wave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

eff ‘em, right?

[steve dave]

Also, I think it's fair to point out that while dax is a full blown Russian propagandist, Nic has always been a fairly steady isolationist libertarian.

very important point (so far)

[Pete]

Someone please tell me why my statement is unfounded or unreasonable. emojis aren't going to cut it.

Ukraine wants its land back and some atonement for the raping torture looting and we get to bleed out the Russian bear without firing a shot.  This is inevitable now

This is a valid argument, though one I don't agree with. The deaths of countless soldiers, many of whom will undoubtedly be conscripted, as well as more and more civilians just isn't worth it for me.

What's the appropriate amount of death and destruction for you Pete?

How much death and destruction is only part of the bigger question, and misses the point.  But, first we would have to agree on whether you think fascism is good or bad. If you prefer fascism over democracy (like MAGA does), then there is nothing to debate.  We simply disagree on the way the world should work.

If you reject fascism and favor democracy, then I think the real question to discuss is “how big do I think the risk is that a bad guy/country out there might make me feel like I live in Russia?” I think it’s big enough of a risk to justify our current costs.

I believe that the folks in the NSA, pentagon, CIA, state department, defense contractors, and all those same types of people in other counties, etc. agree with me.  None of these folks think this is only about saving Ukrainians. Many of those folks probably don’t think it has anything do to with Ukrainian souls at all.

Those folks are thinking about what they want the world to be like, or more importantly what they want their own lives to be like.  Most of them say they do not want it to be like Russia, and don’t want to live in a society like that. Most want to live in a a free democracy.

They also think unless to they stop the bad guys, the bad guys will make their lives like living in Russia someday (maybe their grandkids but whatever)

So, we have to commit resources to keep our chances of living in a free democracy as high as we can…balancing the costs with the benefits and risks. Again, because we don’t want to live like Russians, and we know those fuckers and others like them will make us unless we stop them.

I believe that threat is negligible.

That’s what Neville Chamberlain said.

[nicname]

how many dead ukrainians is ukrainian land worth seems like a question for ukraine to decide, imo.

Nic/dax, I'm interested in what your rebuttal to this is?

My rebuttal would be that it's obviously the Ukrainian leadership's decision. I believe Ukraine and Russia would have already reached peace, but for us and our NATO bros (mainly just us) propping up the Ukrainian forces and in my understanding squelching peace talks. It would have been less than are already dead, a more stable region, and lessened nuclear threat.

I don't think a weakened Russia is all that important as some have stated as a side-goal. Russia has been and would have continued to be weak in most all areas outside of nuclear armament and military size and scope.

Make no mistake. Should this conflict be prolonged indefinitely, wave after Russian military wave will come, and many many more Ukrainians and Russians will die and have their lives ruined. This includes regular military, civilians and conscripted fighters non of whom will have "decided" how many is too many.

Poor men, women and children die and have their lives ruined for the ends of the rich and powerful.

On what terms would Ukraine and Russia have reached peace with fewer dead in this fantasy of yours where Ukraine gets no aid?

It would undoubtedly have to give up some border territory populated by folks who may be culturally and ethnically Ukrainian or Russian, but likely just want to live their lives in peace. If I were living their, I'd prefer that peace to war. And hopefully, I'd be able to tolerate -- without too much difficulty -- whatever government I was ruled by.

[steve dave]

nicname, that isn't yours, mine, or our decision. jesus rough ridin' christ. 

[Sandstone Outcropping]

This is seven months old and it remains the last word on what Russia and Russia apologists mean when they talk about "negotiations"

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/1512451999622643714?s=20&t=YcVGsXJjOAAXTwWo-l5idA

[steve dave]

how many dead ukrainians is ukrainian land worth seems like a question for ukraine to decide, imo.

Nic/dax, I'm interested in what your rebuttal to this is?

My rebuttal would be that it's obviously the Ukrainian leadership's decision. I believe Ukraine and Russia would have already reached peace, but for us and our NATO bros (mainly just us) propping up the Ukrainian forces and in my understanding squelching peace talks. It would have been less than are already dead, a more stable region, and lessened nuclear threat.

I don't think a weakened Russia is all that important as some have stated as a side-goal. Russia has been and would have continued to be weak in most all areas outside of nuclear armament and military size and scope.

Make no mistake. Should this conflict be prolonged indefinitely, wave after Russian military wave will come, and many many more Ukrainians and Russians will die and have their lives ruined. This includes regular military, civilians and conscripted fighters non of whom will have "decided" how many is too many.

Poor men, women and children die and have their lives ruined for the ends of the rich and powerful.

On what terms would Ukraine and Russia have reached peace with fewer dead in this fantasy of yours where Ukraine gets no aid?

It would undoubtedly have to give up some border territory populated by folks who may be culturally and ethnically Ukrainian or Russian, but likely just want to live their lives in peace. If I were living their, I'd prefer that peace to war. And hopefully, I'd be able to tolerate -- without too much difficulty -- whatever government I was ruled by.

If I was Ukrainian I would simply keep being Ukrainian and not be murdered, raped, and/or pillaged no matter who my government was.

[Pete]

This is seven months old and it remains the last word on what Russia and Russia apologists mean when they talk about "negotiations"

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/1512451999622643714?s=20&t=YcVGsXJjOAAXTwWo-l5idA

Thank you for sharing this.

[nicname]

Someone please tell me why my statement is unfounded or unreasonable. emojis aren't going to cut it.

Ukraine wants its land back and some atonement for the raping torture looting and we get to bleed out the Russian bear without firing a shot.  This is inevitable now

This is a valid argument, though one I don't agree with. The deaths of countless soldiers, many of whom will undoubtedly be conscripted, as well as more and more civilians just isn't worth it for me.

What's the appropriate amount of death and destruction for you Pete?

How much death and destruction is only part of the bigger question, and misses the point.  But, first we would have to agree on whether you think fascism is good or bad. If you prefer fascism over democracy (like MAGA does), then there is nothing to debate.  We simply disagree on the way the world should work.

If you reject fascism and favor democracy, then I think the real question to discuss is “how big do I think the risk is that a bad guy/country out there might make me feel like I live in Russia?” I think it’s big enough of a risk to justify our current costs.

I believe that the folks in the NSA, pentagon, CIA, state department, defense contractors, and all those same types of people in other counties, etc. agree with me.  None of these folks think this is only about saving Ukrainians. Many of those folks probably don’t think it has anything do to with Ukrainian souls at all.

Those folks are thinking about what they want the world to be like, or more importantly what they want their own lives to be like.  Most of them say they do not want it to be like Russia, and don’t want to live in a society like that. Most want to live in a a free democracy.

They also think unless to they stop the bad guys, the bad guys will make their lives like living in Russia someday (maybe their grandkids but whatever)

So, we have to commit resources to keep our chances of living in a free democracy as high as we can…balancing the costs with the benefits and risks. Again, because we don’t want to live like Russians, and we know those fuckers and others like them will make us unless we stop them.

I believe that threat is negligible.

That’s what Neville Chamberlain said.

Russia is not a threat. 

[Pete]

Someone please tell me why my statement is unfounded or unreasonable. emojis aren't going to cut it.

Ukraine wants its land back and some atonement for the raping torture looting and we get to bleed out the Russian bear without firing a shot.  This is inevitable now

This is a valid argument, though one I don't agree with. The deaths of countless soldiers, many of whom will undoubtedly be conscripted, as well as more and more civilians just isn't worth it for me.

What's the appropriate amount of death and destruction for you Pete?

How much death and destruction is only part of the bigger question, and misses the point.  But, first we would have to agree on whether you think fascism is good or bad. If you prefer fascism over democracy (like MAGA does), then there is nothing to debate.  We simply disagree on the way the world should work.

If you reject fascism and favor democracy, then I think the real question to discuss is “how big do I think the risk is that a bad guy/country out there might make me feel like I live in Russia?” I think it’s big enough of a risk to justify our current costs.

I believe that the folks in the NSA, pentagon, CIA, state department, defense contractors, and all those same types of people in other counties, etc. agree with me.  None of these folks think this is only about saving Ukrainians. Many of those folks probably don’t think it has anything do to with Ukrainian souls at all.

Those folks are thinking about what they want the world to be like, or more importantly what they want their own lives to be like.  Most of them say they do not want it to be like Russia, and don’t want to live in a society like that. Most want to live in a a free democracy.

They also think unless to they stop the bad guys, the bad guys will make their lives like living in Russia someday (maybe their grandkids but whatever)

So, we have to commit resources to keep our chances of living in a free democracy as high as we can…balancing the costs with the benefits and risks. Again, because we don’t want to live like Russians, and we know those fuckers and others like them will make us unless we stop them.

I believe that threat is negligible.

That’s what Neville Chamberlain said.

Russia is not a threat.

That’s what the Europeans said.

[Pete]

Let’s not forget that everyone said “Russia isn’t a threat” before and after Crimea as well. And other Russian neighbors we don’t give a eff about because they are not worth the cost of saving.