I'm not comfortable with this

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
So you're saying it was wrong for the Ukies to use our intel to whack those generals or to sink their flagship?  Or wrong of us to provide it to them?  Or both?

Asking for a friend.
It is not wrong for the Ukranians to seek out any and all help that they can get. They are in a war with Russia. The Ukranians can get real-time satellite imagery on the open market from French and American satellites, geostationary and polar orbiters, they can develop their recon, and they can beg, borrow and steal money to pay for this from whomever, or even ask for freebies from open sources.

However it is wrong for the USA to use our defense infrastructure to enact proxy assassinations against Russia. We are not at war with Russia. If we continue to allow our leaders to authorize this kind of thing, that may change soon, and by the looks your support of this, you do not have children of draftable age that will be called up in an unnecessary war against Russia.

Is that clear enough for your friend?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
8,108
1,352
Forever wars are one of the side effects of unclear policies.

One of the very important reasons that the legislature and not the president was given the responsibility to declare war was that war must have the consensus of the governed.  The declaration gives the opportunity to explain WHY it was necessary to fight now.  The people have to know why they're being asked to sacrifice, otherwise they eventually just get angry.  This is a fundamental aspect of human nature seems to be lost on modern politicians.

One of the reasons we have a military industrial complex is because we're suppose to fight an unknown war against an unknown aggressor, anywhere at any time, and win.  If that's your objective, there's no way to avoid having an enormous stockpile of military capability on hand at all times.  The Ukraine war is going to be used to justify trillions in spending over the next decade, even if not a single American dies.

I'm not against helping Ukraine.  Given where we're at, its the best bad option.  But like everything, there is consequence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mid

Blues Rule
the USA is not at war with Russia
Alamy_A14A69-c-29b8790.jpg


 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
The USA is not at war with Russia.

But if you want the USA to be at war with Russia, we simply need to continue with our heads in the sand as you picture, continue these ill-advised vote-grabbing adventures, and POOF, the USA will be at war with Russia.

Will that make you happy, when the USA is at war with Russia? It certainly will make China happy, they'll step over the graves of our loved ones and pick up the pieces.

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
The USA is not at war with Russia. The word "war" still means something, in a legal sense, regardless this current lack of Congressional oversight, and really smart eggheads who claim otherwise.

The opportunity here is to use the contested regions as economic development regions, under Blue Helmet supervision. Set them up as "contested" with permanent ceasefire, Russia and Ukraine can pump some money into them for infrastructure and education and a referendum would be set for say 2030, or maybe 2040.

The USA has to be involved here, since China has staked their claim on whatever emerges, and the EU has its own dependencies and energy addictions. More than anyone else, our own interests would benefit from measure of neutrality, even as we use every humanitarian tool at our disposal to help the people of the Ukraine.

 

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,806
Sandusky Sailing Club
The opportunity here is to use the contested regions as economic development regions
Well, while we are spouting off to no effect, I'll chime in too. 

For me, the deal should include Russia pulling back its offensive troops and equipment 300 miles from the Ukr and Belarus borders; and in exchange de-militarize as much of Eastern Europe as possible. 

Please read Quigley if you have not already. 

 

Remodel

Super Anarchist
10,322
922
None
Okay, to get a little thread drift going here on post #4, and responding to my own pic: why does that tattoo have a fouled anchor on it and what looks like a sailor's sleeve?

The fouled anchor is a Marine symbol.

(Semper Fi, y'all!)
The fouled anchor is the symbol for the U.S. Navy rank of Chief Petty Officer.

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
Well, while we are spouting off to no effect, I'll chime in too. 

For me, the deal should include Russia pulling back its offensive troops and equipment 300 miles from the Ukr and Belarus borders; and in exchange de-militarize as much of Eastern Europe as possible. 

Please read Quigley if you have not already. 
I read it from your link. Your suggestion of a demil zone at 300 miles is a good idea, gives room for bargaining down to a few miles, which is where these things tend to go. If memory serves, the original float for the demil zone in Korea was 100 total kilometers, eventually whittled down to 10 km or so, with 5 kilometers on either side of the border.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zonker

Super Anarchist
10,136
6,325
Canada
For me, the deal should include Russia pulling back its offensive troops and equipment 300 miles from the Ukr and Belarus borders; and in exchange de-militarize as much of Eastern Europe as possible
Sure. So Russia has troops and weapons and Eastern Europe does not? Russia has proven time and again it cannot be trusted.

 

Zonker

Super Anarchist
10,136
6,325
Canada
What is it with you and whataboutism?

I am not talking about other countries or the US record of invading countries. I'm talking about Russia's bad habits.

 

Rain Man

Super Anarchist
7,372
2,179
Wet coast.
Someone should point out to AJ that Moscow is not much more than 300 Miles from the border. The Russians would not leave Moscow on the edge of a militarized zone.  

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
Someone should point out to AJ that Moscow is not much more than 300 Miles from the border. The Russians would not leave Moscow on the edge of a militarized zone.  
Edge of a demilitarized zone?

These things tend to start irrationally, even a 1 km buffer or so along the border would be a good start. It's fine, they can work. The DMZ in Cyprus, at its narrowest is only 10 meters on either side of the border. And the Cyprus DMZ worked partly because they didn't do the "squishy" approach and forbid military, they just made it a no-mans land. But there is an undeniable economic hit from these DMZs that neither Russia nor Ukraine would likely want to stomach. A wide buffer on the Russian side will require an equal-width one on the Ukraine side.

Another approach is just to let each country manage their own border, without the major international expense of Blue Helmeting it, and then use the few billion per year from compliance as investment in both countries. The USA needs to start forming a new Marshall Plan for both countries. Economics and population started this mess, economics and population needs to be the way to end it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
What is it with you and whataboutism?

I am not talking about other countries or the US record of invading countries. I'm talking about Russia's bad habits.
Yeah, it's about Russia doing the same dunderheaded bullshit that we have done for the last thirty-some years. But we do have to identify our sins if we hope to be more useful than fuck-all. The way we now perceive Russia is the way that huge chunks of the world have perceived hus for the last thirty-some years. Well, not "US" being Canada, Mexico and the USA, but the USA, specifically. We did Putin'ed the shit out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and a few others.

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,857
3,641
Edge of a demilitarized zone?

These things tend to start irrationally, even a 1 km buffer or so along the border would be a good start. It's fine, they can work. The DMZ in Cyprus, at its narrowest is only 10 meters on either side of the border. And the Cyprus DMZ worked partly because they didn't do the "squishy" approach and forbid military, they just made it a no-mans land. But there is an undeniable economic hit from these DMZs that neither Russia nor Ukraine would likely want to stomach. A wide buffer on the Russian side will require an equal-width one on the Ukraine side.

Another approach is just to let each country manage their own border, without the major international expense of Blue Helmeting it, and then use the few billion per year from compliance as investment in both countries. The USA needs to start forming a new Marshall Plan for both countries. Economics and population started this mess, economics and population needs to be the way to end it.
China can support Putin’s bitches.

None of my tax $s plz. About time Jinping took a positive step. 

Ever since they started taking over the GOP, Americans have had to deal with a well-funded **Dogballs** wing. They can sue Trump to get their cash back.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,393
3,482
Tasmania, Australia
Sure. So Russia has troops and weapons and Eastern Europe does not? Russia has proven time and again it cannot be trusted.
And in addition, who decides what is 'offensive' weaponry/troops and 'defensive' same?

AJ is trying to deflect to avoid criticising his hero Putin, the Nazi destroyer. Because, just like AJ, anyone not in step with the chosen ideology MUST be a Nazi by definition.

FKT

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
China can support Putin’s bitches.

None of my tax $s plz. About time Jinping took a positive step. 

Ever since they started taking over the GOP, Americans have had to deal with a well-funded **Dogballs** wing. They can sue Trump to get their cash back.
China doesn't need Russia.

China needs West Africa, they need South America, Mongolia, North America, they sort of need Australia. But they can get along without Russia. So if they see that the USA is going to pass up the opportunity of a lifetime with the wildly undervalued economy of Russia, a victim of population inversion and isolationist politics, they will pounce just to keep us from grabbing that investment. And China can drop a hundred billion into Russia without even stopping to wipe their ass.

We need Russia as a friend if we hope to have a chance to capture a sufficient amount of the REE, titanium, plasma fiber and carbon nanostructuring industries to compete in any rational way with China. And if we don't compete with China in this, then they'll own us, they'll own our low-entropy industry and any efforts we've made to move to Cleantech will be absorbed and shelved. It is no longer about the USA, it's about the health of the atmosphere, water and soil on the entire planet. The USA is the only entity large enough to go toe-to-toe with China on this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,806
Sandusky Sailing Club
AJ is trying to deflect to avoid criticising his hero Putin, the Nazi destroyer. Because, just like AJ, anyone not in step with the chosen ideology MUST be a Nazi by definition.
Any chance you could address the topic as opposed to stochastic trashing ?? 

I think you must still be oh so hurt that I civilly corrected your 

abject ignorance about arms control and US politics (your take on gerrymandering was a particular hoot). 

 

Latest posts




Top