- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 12/6/23 at 8:31 am to Errerrerrwere
Posted on 12/6/23 at 8:31 am to Errerrerrwere
The Biden administration has passed over $7 TRILLION in spending on the US and $100B on Ukraine, wtf are you gibbering about with the America First statement?
We have given Ukraine about $27B in cash.
We have given Ukraine about $27B in cash.
This post was edited on 12/6/23 at 8:34 am
1
Posted on 12/6/23 at 9:01 am to WeeWee
Honestly right now peace talks would be a disaster for Ukraine since Russia’s demands would be a non starter. If Putin were to agree to either
A) Return to pre 1991 borders and Ukraine agrees not to enter NATO. Putin will never go for this of course. Or…..
B) Give Russia some of the Donbas and Crimea but Ukraine is free to enter NATO. Putin also won’t do this.
My point being Putin is never going agree to any deal where he isn’t the outright winner and Ukraine the loser with no chance of entering NATO which scares Putin most because then he knows he can never frick with the Ukrainians again without having the USA and NATO up his arse like a proctologist with no lube. right now Ukraine must fight in order to put themselves in a better position to negotiate from. i would give Putin a good bit of the land he occupies in the Donbas if it leaks Ukraine comes under NATO and i believe the Ukrainians would do this deal as well. They have a huge country and giving up 10-12% of it in the east where a lot of the land is completely destroyed anyway but that gives them protection from Russia forever is a good deal for Ukraine IMO. they still keep the port of Odessa even if they lose Mariupol so they have access to the sea and then they start moving companies previously in the east towards central and western Ukraine and begin to build your new NATO standard nation and military.
A) Return to pre 1991 borders and Ukraine agrees not to enter NATO. Putin will never go for this of course. Or…..
B) Give Russia some of the Donbas and Crimea but Ukraine is free to enter NATO. Putin also won’t do this.
My point being Putin is never going agree to any deal where he isn’t the outright winner and Ukraine the loser with no chance of entering NATO which scares Putin most because then he knows he can never frick with the Ukrainians again without having the USA and NATO up his arse like a proctologist with no lube. right now Ukraine must fight in order to put themselves in a better position to negotiate from. i would give Putin a good bit of the land he occupies in the Donbas if it leaks Ukraine comes under NATO and i believe the Ukrainians would do this deal as well. They have a huge country and giving up 10-12% of it in the east where a lot of the land is completely destroyed anyway but that gives them protection from Russia forever is a good deal for Ukraine IMO. they still keep the port of Odessa even if they lose Mariupol so they have access to the sea and then they start moving companies previously in the east towards central and western Ukraine and begin to build your new NATO standard nation and military.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 9:09 am to Chromdome35
quote:$113 billion ... but ... you know ... like in a like $7 Trillion pig sty, like what's a few billion extra dollars.
We have given Ukraine about $27B in cash.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 9:13 am to LSUPilot07
Any deal can not impede Ukraine’s right as a sovereign nation to make treaties which are in their best interest.
Simply dividing up Ukraine and letting hundreds of thousand Russian soldiers recharge their batteries on the new border is suicide for Ukraine.
Simply dividing up Ukraine and letting hundreds of thousand Russian soldiers recharge their batteries on the new border is suicide for Ukraine.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 9:17 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
$113 billion ... but ... you know ... like in a like $7 Trillion pig sty, like what's a few billion extra dollars.
113 Billion in aid isn’t much in the overall scheme of things.
The problem is Congress and the administration are spending trillions that we don’t have on things we don’t need and they are neglecting things we need.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 9:18 am to LSUPilot07
I haven’t wasted my time responding to trolls like you that support Russia and Putin (you do even if you say you don’t) but when you are just flat out lying you need to be called out on your bullshite. it’s not like we have handed Ukraine $100 billion in cash and told them to go have a party. The vast majority of aid to Ukraine has come from existing U.S. stocks of material and munitions that were either in storage and were never going to be used by our forces again or for ammunition. We would still have to pay money to destroy older weapons or spend money housing military vehicles that had been pulled out of active U.S. service like the M1A1s and many of the M2 Bradleys of which we have thousands both active and in storage. At least try to be fair when you speak.
This post was edited on 12/6/23 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 12/6/23 at 9:21 am to NC_Tigah
We have given them $113B worth of aid; however, the majority of that was in equipment donations some of which was stuff we were already getting rid of. We have given them $27B in cash.
This post was edited on 12/6/23 at 11:18 am
Posted on 12/6/23 at 10:16 am to doubleb
quote:
113 Billion in aid isn’t much in the overall scheme of things.
LOL....they wouldn't kick up $6 billion for southern border which is only about a million times more important than what happens in a couple hundred miles of eastern Ukraine.
I'm 54 years old and for a good part of my life Ukraine was part of the fricking USSR. It didn't bother me a bit.
This was during the Cold War when Russia was actually a threat.
Russia is a dying power being pumped up as some boogeyman which is useful to politicians.
I've always wished the best of luck to Ukraine in their war with Russia. I sincerely wish they could run every Russian back over the border but whether they do or don't doesn't matter a damn bit to me.
It's not 1955 anymore.
This post was edited on 12/6/23 at 10:22 am
Posted on 12/6/23 at 10:23 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:
The Soviets did plenty of evil things, this one was just incompetence.
Stalin was pretty efficient at mass liquidation, gulags and slave labor.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 10:28 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
$113 billion ... but ... you know ... like in a like $7 Trillion pig sty, like what's a few billion extra dollars.
No where in your source does it state that it was $113 billion cash, because it isn't. But you know this, because the point has been made ad nauseum. You just don't want to accept it.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 10:43 am to facher08
quote:We've given them over $100B. Regarding "cash," why in hell would any sane person give one of the most historically corrupt countries on earth, a single dollar in cash, much less billions? That is asking for trouble.
No where in your source does it state that it was $113 billion cash, because it isn't. But you know this, because the point has been made ad nauseum. You just don't want to accept it.
Billions in food, equipment, etc.... fine. Though it appears even some of that aid was sold on the secondary market by Ukrainian profiteers.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 10:53 am to NC_Tigah
Ok, so you quoted a poster that said
then attempted to correct him by linking a story that included no mention of cash dispersals, and since you realize that source rebutts nothing, now you're moving the goal posts with an appeal to emotion.
quote:
we have given Ukraine about $27B in cash
then attempted to correct him by linking a story that included no mention of cash dispersals, and since you realize that source rebutts nothing, now you're moving the goal posts with an appeal to emotion.
This post was edited on 12/6/23 at 10:55 am
Posted on 12/6/23 at 11:00 am to facher08
quote:Facts are an appeal to emotion. OK then.
an appeal to emotion.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 11:09 am to facher08
No one in Congress has been a bigger supporter of Ukraine than Sen. McConnell, and he's very much on board with the House GOP strategy now.
Why?
It's because the Biden Administration has completely bungled the war, doling out equipment slowly and long after it would have been most effective.
Every expert agrees that, had Ukraine gotten HIMARS, ATACMS, Bradleys, cluster munitions, Abrams, etc. earlier in the war, Ukraine would have crushed Russia in the south and also retaken much of the Donbas.
But the Biden Administration didn't want this to happen. Biden has continually talked about helping "as long as it takes," but he won't say what "it" is. Ukrainian victory? Why won't Biden say that?
I understood the hesitation at first, because there really did seem to be a risk of escalation. But that time passed a long time ago.
The GOP Congress expected Biden to give Ukraine a lot more aid. That's why they passed Lend-Lease, which Biden then refused to use. The GOP Congress expected Biden to give Ukraine the equipment that it needed to win, and Biden wouldn't do that.
So, why should Congress pass more aid so that Ukraine can lose more slowly than otherwise? Why is Ukraine's losing more slowly a goal that the American taxpayers should foot the bill for?
This is the key part of the equation that so many observers (and most of the discussion here) is overlooking. Speaker Johnson's letter to Biden says that Congress needs to see a strategy of victory before they authorize more aid.
I don't have a problem with that.
Why?
It's because the Biden Administration has completely bungled the war, doling out equipment slowly and long after it would have been most effective.
Every expert agrees that, had Ukraine gotten HIMARS, ATACMS, Bradleys, cluster munitions, Abrams, etc. earlier in the war, Ukraine would have crushed Russia in the south and also retaken much of the Donbas.
But the Biden Administration didn't want this to happen. Biden has continually talked about helping "as long as it takes," but he won't say what "it" is. Ukrainian victory? Why won't Biden say that?
I understood the hesitation at first, because there really did seem to be a risk of escalation. But that time passed a long time ago.
The GOP Congress expected Biden to give Ukraine a lot more aid. That's why they passed Lend-Lease, which Biden then refused to use. The GOP Congress expected Biden to give Ukraine the equipment that it needed to win, and Biden wouldn't do that.
So, why should Congress pass more aid so that Ukraine can lose more slowly than otherwise? Why is Ukraine's losing more slowly a goal that the American taxpayers should foot the bill for?
This is the key part of the equation that so many observers (and most of the discussion here) is overlooking. Speaker Johnson's letter to Biden says that Congress needs to see a strategy of victory before they authorize more aid.
I don't have a problem with that.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 11:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Facts are an appeal to emotion. OK then.
You're right. More of a red herring since the total of amount given in cash was the point in question, which you couldn't rebut, so you attempted to distract with an unrelated question on why we should give any cash at all. I can't keep up with the logical fallacies sometimes.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 12:00 pm to facher08
quote:I’m appalled we’ve given a penny in cash. But from our end, it’s all our cash…. and our debt. I guess that was the point.
More of a red herring since the total of amount given in cash was the point in question
Posted on 12/6/23 at 12:10 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
This is the key part of the equation that so many observers (and most of the d
Biden's trickle, trickle, trickle is just another reflection of his well established pattern of incompetence. It took two years to even offer a few F16's.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 12:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But from our end, it’s all our cash
It's literally not.
quote:
I guess that was the point.
No. That was YOUR new point after you crawfished away from THE point.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 12:29 pm to Auburn1968
The GOP is split between people who want to give zero money to Ukraine and people who want to give the Ukrainians what they need to win.
No one in the GOP is in favor of giving Ukraine just enough aid so that they lose slowly, which is what Biden's plan has seemed to be. Everyone agrees that that is wasteful.
Biden should fire Jake Sullivan and decide whether he wants Ukraine to win or not.
The border demands are entirely predictable as well. I said before the Ukrainian offensive that, if it failed, future Ukrainian aid would likely depend on border control. You could find several posts of mine from this spring saying exactly that. If Biden didn't want to deal with that, then he needed the offensive to work, and he didn't give Ukraine what they needed.
No one in the GOP is in favor of giving Ukraine just enough aid so that they lose slowly, which is what Biden's plan has seemed to be. Everyone agrees that that is wasteful.
Biden should fire Jake Sullivan and decide whether he wants Ukraine to win or not.
The border demands are entirely predictable as well. I said before the Ukrainian offensive that, if it failed, future Ukrainian aid would likely depend on border control. You could find several posts of mine from this spring saying exactly that. If Biden didn't want to deal with that, then he needed the offensive to work, and he didn't give Ukraine what they needed.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 12:31 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
Jake Sullivan
The worst.
Page 3377 of 3928
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News