smithra_66
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 2,140
So you'd give the order? We should initiate military ops with Russia right now?
Yes or no.
The Russians have gone in
- Thread starter LVSteve
- Start date
- Status
So you'd give the order? We should initiate military ops with Russia right now?
Yes or no.
UncleEd
Member
An all-out declaration of
war, which Smithra_66
seems to want from the
West would solidify the
Russian people. Or at
least he wants an
unequivocal declaration
from numerous
posters in this thread.
It is still an unnecessary
move to achieve the
weakening of the Putin
regime andr getting rid of
it. But at the same time,
NATO is standing ready
should any member states
be attacked.
I asked Smithra_66 two
questions which he has
ignored.
war, which Smithra_66
seems to want from the
West would solidify the
Russian people. Or at
least he wants an
unequivocal declaration
from numerous
posters in this thread.
It is still an unnecessary
move to achieve the
weakening of the Putin
regime andr getting rid of
it. But at the same time,
NATO is standing ready
should any member states
be attacked.
I asked Smithra_66 two
questions which he has
ignored.
We are in a very tense waiting game at the moment, where no one wants to give "The Order", the ramifications of which could have enormous global consequences far beyond anything we are experiencing at the moment.
So no- not "right now". And hopefully not at all. But I imagine there are a lot of white knuckles in Washington and elsewhere at the moment. There is no doubt a lot going on behind the scenes of which we and the media are unaware.
smithra_66
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 2,140
What would you do then? Your questions were out of left field. The west IS allowing putin to do what he wants. They are sanctioning him for it.
You seem to be implying that you would do something DIFFERENT than what we are already doing. I asked if you want to go to war? Otherwise you're allowing Putin to continue what he's doing, just like I said.
Objection - argumentative.
smithra_66
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 2,140
Okay, well a lot of people here are talking a lot of bluster. When I asked why we would fight Russia over this, they sounded as if I was crazy.
It turns out, no one here would fight Russia military, just like I said. I guess I was too "mean" to Ukraine in my description of them, and that's what they found off-putting?
No one here would do anything differently than what's being done already. That is: ALLOW PUTIN TO TAKE UKRAINE IF HE CAN.
What am I missing?
vonn
US Veteran
One match can burn down an entire forest
smithman 10
US Veteran
I think you've got your answer
If I read the recent responses correctly, there are some folks ready to go to war with Russia right now. Not that anyone WANTS to do it, just that they believe it has become necessary. Your insistence on a immediate yes or no answer on going to war is quite childish when applied to this question. It's not like "Do you want a hamburger for lunch, yes or no?"
As for me, I find myself in between but depending on what happens in the near future, I could see myself joining those folks in the opinion that war, while fraught with huge danger and uncertainty, is the right choice.
But just in case you fail to understand the obvious, no one on this board has the power to declare war on Russia. The president and congress are not waiting on a consensus from the Smith and Wesson Forum before making such a decision!
Putin has the power to prevent my personal change to a decision that war is necessary simply by agreeing to a cease-fire and beginning serious negotiations.
Putin started the war and he can end it. Or he can escalate and drive NATO into a position where they will go to war.
So you have your answer it seems clear to me. How about moving on to something else now - your posts are becoming extremely tiresome!
If I read the recent responses correctly, there are some folks ready to go to war with Russia right now. Not that anyone WANTS to do it, just that they believe it has become necessary. Your insistence on a immediate yes or no answer on going to war is quite childish when applied to this question. It's not like "Do you want a hamburger for lunch, yes or no?"
As for me, I find myself in between but depending on what happens in the near future, I could see myself joining those folks in the opinion that war, while fraught with huge danger and uncertainty, is the right choice.
But just in case you fail to understand the obvious, no one on this board has the power to declare war on Russia. The president and congress are not waiting on a consensus from the Smith and Wesson Forum before making such a decision!
Putin has the power to prevent my personal change to a decision that war is necessary simply by agreeing to a cease-fire and beginning serious negotiations.
Putin started the war and he can end it. Or he can escalate and drive NATO into a position where they will go to war.
So you have your answer it seems clear to me. How about moving on to something else now - your posts are becoming extremely tiresome!
Last edited:
smithra_66
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 2,140
So more long-winded nothingness.
The bottom line: Russia going into Ukraine and committing all the stuff they've done is NOT enough for you to declare war against Russia.
Which was my original point. We agree.
And NATO has already shown that they ARE NOT going to war. The USA drives the show. Most NATO members don't even pay their security bills or spend to the required defense budgets. They couldn't care less about defending a country like Ukraine, especially if the USA isn't involved. And Putin knows where his limits are. He wouldn't dare invade a NATO country or provoke the USA into an actual war.
Ukraine is their freebie and they are taking it. I'm glad that most of you, when challenged at least, admit that Ukraine is not worth fighting Russia for.
Last edited:
UncleEd
Member
One of the achievements
of the previous US
administration was to get
NATO members to pay
up their dues. And now
Germany has doubled its
budget with the invasion
of Ukraine.
of the previous US
administration was to get
NATO members to pay
up their dues. And now
Germany has doubled its
budget with the invasion
of Ukraine.
UncleEd
Member
Why Smithra_66 do you
keep insisting the only
two avenues are "do nothing"
or go full out war?
Do you not see other avenues
including the one the West
is now pursuing?
And I do not see why you are
so dismissive of Ukraine as
a sovereign state with rights
that should not be trampled
by Putin.
keep insisting the only
two avenues are "do nothing"
or go full out war?
Do you not see other avenues
including the one the West
is now pursuing?
And I do not see why you are
so dismissive of Ukraine as
a sovereign state with rights
that should not be trampled
by Putin.
Here's how NATO funding works in reality (instead of media-fueled presumption).
NATO - Topic: Funding NATO
NATO - Topic: Funding NATO
Last edited:
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
What we think here individually is largely irrelevant since the political reality out there is crystal clear:
We as the West are not stopping Putin in Ukraine, and there is no political will or majority in any NATO country to do so. In the US, the latest surveys from reliable pollsters show somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans opposed to any course of action that would risk direct war with Russia.
Personally, I'd be willing to take a lot more risks. But I'm old and sick and have no children, so when it comes to nuclear mushrooms … hey, bucket list item. But no responsible leader can take that attitude.
There is a red line, but it runs along Ukraine's Western borders.
So instead, we are working to make Putin stop. That's a different game, but it's the only one there is. Remember that no nuclear power that lost a "small war" has ever actually been defeated; instead, they pack it in because costs and benefits are no longer worth the trouble. France in Algeria, the US in Vietnam, Russia and the US in Afghanistan, the British in Northern Ireland … always the same story.
We're trying for the same thing, just hopefully with a shorter timeline. Momentum is important. Because quite frankly, I don't trust the enthusiasm and focus of Western, particularly American audiences. This could drag on, and settle into a stalemate of sorts; hoping for regime change in Moscow may be futile. Ukraine could even end up as the Germany of the new Cold War, divided into a Russian and a Western part, a constant source of friction as boredom sets in.
We as the West are not stopping Putin in Ukraine, and there is no political will or majority in any NATO country to do so. In the US, the latest surveys from reliable pollsters show somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans opposed to any course of action that would risk direct war with Russia.
Personally, I'd be willing to take a lot more risks. But I'm old and sick and have no children, so when it comes to nuclear mushrooms … hey, bucket list item. But no responsible leader can take that attitude.
There is a red line, but it runs along Ukraine's Western borders.
So instead, we are working to make Putin stop. That's a different game, but it's the only one there is. Remember that no nuclear power that lost a "small war" has ever actually been defeated; instead, they pack it in because costs and benefits are no longer worth the trouble. France in Algeria, the US in Vietnam, Russia and the US in Afghanistan, the British in Northern Ireland … always the same story.
We're trying for the same thing, just hopefully with a shorter timeline. Momentum is important. Because quite frankly, I don't trust the enthusiasm and focus of Western, particularly American audiences. This could drag on, and settle into a stalemate of sorts; hoping for regime change in Moscow may be futile. Ukraine could even end up as the Germany of the new Cold War, divided into a Russian and a Western part, a constant source of friction as boredom sets in.
cmj8591
Member
If Putin thought we would have given the order, he would not have gone into Ukraine. First, we should give Ukraine planes. If that doesn't work, then we should impose a NATO enforced no fly zone. And we should continue to provide weapons to the Ukraine Army. As much as they need. If that doesn't turn them back, then yes, we should use ground troops. We should not allow Russia to end Ukraine sovereignty no matter what we have to commit militarily, up to and including nuclear weapons.
Last edited:
StakeOut
US Veteran
The only winning strategy IMO is to bankrupt Russia.
Cripple the sources of income that fuel the military.
Cripple the sources of income that fuel the military.
cmj8591
Member
That ship sailed the moment the US went away from exporting energy.
Invade Russia??? Who has even mentioned that?
Why are you setting up straw man arguments? And why do you refuse to acknowledge the gravity of what is happening here?
StakeOut
US Veteran
This was done by executive orders and regulation changes.
These can quickly change again with enough political pressure here at home and/or the taking control of the house and senate.
Had it not been stopped the Keystone pipeline would be completed now and delivering 900,000 barrels a day.
cmj8591
Member
It's impossible to discuss this without talking about the political undertones that created the situation. I think as far as US politics go, the current events speak for themselves. Hopefully, this won't get me another gig.
Good question. The answer? Nobody. I see a lot of support for the actions being taken now, and a lot of support for Ukraine's actions and response, but nobody is calling for the US to attack russia or their forces in Ukraine. It's been a great thread, I hope that if the moderators tire of the argumentative badgering they will deal with that alone, and let the thread continue.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
