Paying to Rebuild the Ukraine

[Rustyt1953]

This is just another backdoor attempt to resurrect the "Russians have gone in thread" populated by the same band of chest beaters. God forbid someone should voice an opinion that goes against the prevailing grain.

This is why I rarely engage in these lopsided threads.

"Ignorant clown"? I expected better.

I should have known better. I'm out.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

Never waste a good crisis. US taxpayers will foot much of the bill, but the money will ultimately be subcontracted to the companies owned by US politicians, so it will all work out as usual. Not to worry.

 

[Der Verminator]

When you talk to people in person, do they walk off in mid sentence?

Only those few who are unsettled by polysyllabic words.

 

[bigwheelzip]

No one is there to help us? How many allied mother's sons must die at our behest, before we feel their sacrificed lives count enough to be acknowledged by us.


Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

 

[biku324]

No one is there to help us? How many allied mother's sons must die at our behest, before we feel their sacrificed lives count enough to be acknowledged by us.


Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

The FiveEyes always die with us. Always.

Just few years ago, an IS bombmaker known as Marawan was hiding at Mamasapano, Mindanao. We wanted him badly, and let our Filipino friends know where he was. Forty-four Philippine National Police SAF troopers died killing him and returning from hostile jungle.

Marawan was a danger to us, not them, but Filipinos are our friends, many unto death.

 

[dockmurgw]

Another ignorant clown with a short memory.

After 9/11, approximately one out of every four soldiers dying on the field of battle against terror, was a foreign ally. Belittling their shared sacrifice is unconscionable.

Afghanistan losses:

Albania: 1

Australia: 41

Belgium: 1

Canada: 158

Croatia: 1

Czech Republic: 14

Denmark: 43

Estonia: 9

Finland: 2

France: 86

Georgia: 29

Germany: 54

Hungary: 7

Italy: 48

Jordan: 2

Latvia: 3

Lithuania: 1

NATO: 18

Netherlands: 25

New Zealand: 11

Norway: 10

Poland: 40

Portugal: 2

Romania: 25

Slovakia: 3

South Korea: 1

Spain: 34

Sweden: 5

Turkey: 14

United Kingdom: 455

United States: 2465

Iraq losses:

Australia: 2

Azerbaijan: 1

Bulgaria: 13

Canada: 1

Czech Republic: 1

Denmark: 7

El Salvador: 5

Estonia: 2

Fiji: 1

France: 1

Georgia: 5

Germany: 1

Hungary: 1

Italy: 33

Kazakhstan: 1

Latvia: 3

Netherlands: 2

Poland: 23

Romania: 3

Slovakia: 4

South Korea: 1

Spain: 11

Thailand: 2

Ukraine: 18

United Kingdom: 182

United States: 4586





Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

Apples and oranges. How many in your list died on US soil? As in, for example, Main St. Nebraska USA? None. It's more than a little obvious, the "Ignorant Clown" in the picture is referring to US soil, not some foreign cesspool of a dirt spec on the world map.

 

[Der Verminator]

Seems to me that these threads end badly because a few people start namecalling and attacking others just because they have a different opinion.

The war is a good topic.

Instead of locking the thread........why not just give the namecallers a few days of vacation from the forum?

Why not punish the guilty instead of the rest of us???

Does that seem too rational and logical?

 

[bigwheelzip]

... the picture is referring to US soil....

The picture refers to coming to the aid of the United States when things go sideways, like so many did after 9/11/01.
I'm sure the many Brits, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc. on this forum who lost countrymen at our side in Iraq and Afghanistan, know what the cost of being our ally is.




Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

 

[16thVACav]

Another ignorant clown with a short memory.

I'm a little confused as to whether you are referring to the man holding the sign, or Rustyt1953?

 

[bigwheelzip]

I'm a little confused as to whether you are referring to the man holding the sign, or Rustyt1953?

The man holding the sign. I don't believe Rusty, being half British, would disrespect the 637 Brits who lost their lives post-9/11, at our side.


Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

 

[Der Verminator]

Back to the war........and the chess game being played out in Ukraine........

Putin is losing ground slowly without any relief in sight--unless he escalates to nukes.

If Russia uses tactical nukes........he wins immediately and decisively.

Unless.........there's a bold and decisive move by the U.S.

Would we immediately give tactical nukes to the Ukrainians?

McManus: Putin'''s nuclear threat on Ukraine may not be bluff - Los Angeles Times

"We are doing everything we can to help the Ukrainians to defend themselves," Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said last week. "We're also determined that this war not expand."

Or, as Biden has put it more bluntly, "We're trying to avoid World War III."

 

[Onomea]

The man holding the sign. I don't believe Rusty, being half British, would disrespect the 637 Brits who lost their lives post-9/11, at our side.

While I think Rusty may have believed the comment was directed at him, I had no doubt that your comment was directed at the man with the sign.

Re foreigners coming to our aid in wartime on our soil, since the Revolutionary War, when the French were here fighting with us, I don't think we've had any wars in the US except for our Civil War, in which, I think most would agree, foreign militaries fighting in behalf of one side or the other would have have exacerbated that fratricidal tragedy.

 

[biku324]

Recall that both we and the UK are bound to defend Ukraine if they suffer a nuclear attack. We agreed to that in 1994 in the Budapest Memorandum.

 

[Narragansett]

I never get involved in these threads. Reading this makes my hair hurt

 

[Muss Muggins]

You just did . . .

I never get involved in these threads. Reading this makes my hair hurt

 

[Der Verminator]

Recall that both we and the UK are bound to defend Ukraine if they suffer a nuclear attack. We agreed to that in 1994 in the Budapest Memorandum.

Defense may be too strong a word. The signers seem to have interpreted "defense" as sending weapons and equipment.

The U.S. and U.K. and France only agreed to "assurances" of Ukrainian security........not "guarantees" as Ukraine requested.

That memorandum only says that the signers agree to:

"1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[6]
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[7][8]"

And.......then there's this:
"Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[21]

Russia has violated that memorandum since 2014 and our response has only been sanctions and sending military equipment but no troops........it seems our level of response has been demonstrated.

So.......it IS possible that if Russia attacked Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons we could increase that assistance to providing the Ukrainians with tactical nuclear weapons.......but that would be a profoundly dangerous step.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

 

[UncleEd]

Regarding nuclear threat.

I withdrew the question.

Why bother.

 

[arjay]

Defense may be too strong a word. The signers seem to have interpreted "defense" as sending weapons and equipment.

The U.S. and U.K. and France only agreed to "assurances" of Ukrainian security........not "guarantees" as Ukraine requested.

That memorandum only says that the signers agree to:

"1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[6]
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[7][8]"

And.......then there's this:
"Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[21]

Russia has violated that memorandum since 2014 and our response has only been sanctions and sending military equipment but no troops........it seems our level of response has been demonstrated.

So.......it IS possible that if Russia attacked Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons we could increase that assistance to providing the Ukrainians with tactical nuclear weapons.......but that would be a profoundly dangerous step.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

David Patreaus had an interesting take on NATO's response to a tactical nuclear strike
Petraeus: US would destroy Russia's troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine | Ukraine | The Guardian

 

[SMSgt]

Petraeus: US would destroy Russia's troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine | Ukraine | The Guardian[/url]

Maybe in another time with another administration.

 

[Der Verminator]

David Patreaus had an interesting take on NATOs' response to a tactical nuclear strike
Petraeus: US would destroy Russia's troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine | Ukraine | The Guardian

There's a saying from some of the Putin experts.......it goes, "Putin always escalates."

If we did what Petraeus says, Putin would have no choice but to launch a total world nuclear war.

But.......Petraeus may think so, but I don't think we could ever get NATO to participate in a strike that would wipe out the Black Sea fleet and most of Putin's army.

There is neither such will or such courage in NATO.