- 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 4/3/24 at 10:42 am to VolSquatch
Posted on 4/3/24 at 10:42 am to VolSquatch
quote:
Every person who says Putin will not stop at Ukraine if he wins and must be stopped now unwittingly advocates for it, and you can find dozens of those on your own. If he "must be stopped" then if Ukraine can't do it, we will.
It's quite the opposite so STFU with this politard nonsense.
1+1= 1,000,000 million in politard logic
Edit for Clarity
This post was edited on 4/3/24 at 10:48 am
1
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:08 am to VolSquatch
quote:
then if Ukraine can't do it, we will.
That's literally you saying that. No one else.
Giving Ukraine the means to stop him prevents him from being emboldened enough to keep going. Which is a development that could drag our kids into this.
So our point is the exact opposite of what you profess it to be.
You're either disingenuous, or ignorant. But you're not right.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:23 am to VolSquatch
quote:
Every person who says Putin will not stop at Ukraine if he wins and must be stopped now unwittingly advocates for it, and you can find dozens of those on your own. If he "must be stopped" then if Ukraine can't do it, we will.
Can we pause for a moment and focus on this part:
quote:
Every person who says Putin will not stop at Ukraine if he wins and must be stopped now
Russian propaganda says this at least once a week. At least once a week you can find someone on Russian TV talking about conquering Ukraine, Poland, Finland, etc. "Let's roll all the way to Paris" or some other foolishness.
Russian media is controlled by the Russian government. We can therefore extrapolate that the Russian government is telling the Russian population that they intend to "retake the Soviet Union" almost weekly.
It's therefore not crazy to think they intend to go as far as they can, including towards NATO countries.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 11:30 am to VolSquatch
quote:
Every person who says Putin will not stop at Ukraine if he wins and must be stopped now unwittingly advocates for it, and you can find dozens of those on your own. If he "must be stopped" then if Ukraine can't do it, we will.
Didn't you get your panties in a wad a few pages back because you claimed people were putting words in your mouth?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:03 pm to cypher
quote:
There is little doubt that we have the weapons but lack the will to provide them to Ukraine.
So either our government knows Putin isn't going any further than Ukraine despite saying otherwise, or we actually don't have the capability to provide Ukraine with enough weapons to stop them.
And that's completely ignoring whether or not Ukraine has the manpower in both a quantity and/or competency sense to appropriately utilize that weaponry.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:06 pm to No Colors
quote:
That's literally you saying that. No one else.
I guess you just chose to leave this part out and didn't do it selectively to try and prove a bad point
quote:
Every person who says Putin will not stop at Ukraine if he wins and must be stopped now unwittingly advocates for it,
quote:
being emboldened enough to keep going.
quote:
You're either disingenuous, or ignorant. But you're not right.
I am 100% correct. Countries have been sleepwalking into wars for hundreds of years and its happening here. Most are too naive, stupid, or blinded by propaganda to realize it until its too late.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:09 pm to RuLSU
quote:
It's therefore not crazy to think they intend to go as far as they can, including towards NATO countries.
Then if you honestly believe that, why aren't you openly for boots on the ground to stop him now? You either don't think its a real threat so you're being disingenuous and that talking point used to justify more Ukraine money is irrelevant, or you think Russia isn't capable anyway so again, why send more money/weapons?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:10 pm to CitizenK
quote:
It's quite the opposite
I get that you think it is, but its not
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:10 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Then if you honestly believe that, why aren't you openly for boots on the ground to stop him now?
Because they have nukes.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:11 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
Didn't you get your panties in a wad a few pages back because you claimed people were putting words in your mouth?
I was actually just explaining my position to an apparently illiterate poster.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:12 pm to doubleb
quote:
Because they have nukes.
So they won't use them if Ukrainian troops with US arms are about to defeat them, but will if its US/NATO forces?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:27 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
So they won't use them if Ukrainian troops with US arms are about to defeat them, but will if its US/NATO forces?
For over a decade they have been fighting Ukraine and so far they have not. If we escalate and actively fight and kill Russian forces with our forces thry might.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:28 pm to doubleb
quote:
r over a decade they have been fighting Ukraine
And haven't been close to defeat. I said if they are about to defeat them.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:35 pm to VolSquatch
It's a lot of circular discussion trying to get to the core issue IMO:
- If our support stays stagnant or declines; and
- If Ukraine begins to falter or loses outright; and
- If the aftermath of that poses no direct, imminent, genuine threat to the US or a NATO state -
THEN - is this board content with the United States mostly moving on without some new front/effort of US involvement?
- If our support stays stagnant or declines; and
- If Ukraine begins to falter or loses outright; and
- If the aftermath of that poses no direct, imminent, genuine threat to the US or a NATO state -
THEN - is this board content with the United States mostly moving on without some new front/effort of US involvement?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:36 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
So either our government knows Putin isn't going any further than Ukraine despite saying otherwise, or we actually don't have the capability to provide Ukraine with enough weapons to stop them.
Just another false premise.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:38 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
THEN - is this board content with the United States mostly moving on without some new front/effort of US involvement?
Unlike the PT this thread is not a hive.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:04 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Thank you for taking the time away from taking pictures of the same column over and over
quote:You're quite welcome.
Thank you for taking the time ... to yet again lecture us on the 2020 election
Occasionally, repetition leads to better understanding.
That is my hope anyway.
This post was edited on 4/3/24 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:05 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
THEN - is this board content with the United States mostly moving on without some new front/effort of US involvement?
I think this board would be, most of the posters in this thread at least seem to be intelligent people who I disagree with on this issue and believe have just been drinking the propaganda kool-aid that honestly gets everyone from time to time.
That said, to keep giving at the level we have been or to increase it you MUST be convinced that Putin is a threat to NATO countries, and both myself and apparently our government doesn't see it that way. I think the "threat to Europe" argument is just a lazy cop out reason to send more aid from people who can't explain why we should be giving such large amounts to a country that isn't nearly as important to us as it is Russia.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:10 pm to VolSquatch
quote:LINK
Last week, the Russian army’s new grenade-armed robotic mini-tanks joined an assault on Ukrainian positions around Berdychi, just west of the ruins of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine.
The test-by-combat—the first-ever deployment of an armed unmanned ground vehicle for a major mechanized attack—was a smashing success, one Russian propagandist claimed.
But he was lying. In fact, at least two of the five or six Russian UGVs got immobilized then blown up—by Ukraine’s own flying drones.
Great now we have drone planes taking out drone tanks. I hope neither side is working on skynet.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:11 pm to cypher
I'm on PT and I'm outside the hive. This board is has a prevailing position and it's both pretty strong and hostile to outside criticism (much like PT)
But throw whatever caveats you want into it, my question is still out there for you/others, and is genuine.
I suspect there is a good chance the answer to the scenario I pose is "yes, if the policymakers/USA/etc. don't maintain or increase the support and Ukraine falls in part or in whole and Russia sits relatively pat, then while I certainly don't like it, I think that's mostly where it ends for us beyond typical intelligence/policy moves in the ordinary course."
But every time these discussions come up, the prevailing viewpoint of this threat inserts a lot of conditions that make that topic a little murky to sort through. My suspicion is that most of you would grudgingly agree with the quoted concept above.
But I think some in this thread want to allow the flexibility that would come from a broad definition of what "relatively pat" or "aggression" or the like means. In other words, I think some want to find a basis for direct conflict with Russia and believe Russia will at least give them something to work with there even if Russia doesn't pursue a Ukraine-like confrontation with the US/a NATO state. Which to me aligns reasonably well with what Vol guy is suggesting.
But throw whatever caveats you want into it, my question is still out there for you/others, and is genuine.
I suspect there is a good chance the answer to the scenario I pose is "yes, if the policymakers/USA/etc. don't maintain or increase the support and Ukraine falls in part or in whole and Russia sits relatively pat, then while I certainly don't like it, I think that's mostly where it ends for us beyond typical intelligence/policy moves in the ordinary course."
But every time these discussions come up, the prevailing viewpoint of this threat inserts a lot of conditions that make that topic a little murky to sort through. My suspicion is that most of you would grudgingly agree with the quoted concept above.
But I think some in this thread want to allow the flexibility that would come from a broad definition of what "relatively pat" or "aggression" or the like means. In other words, I think some want to find a basis for direct conflict with Russia and believe Russia will at least give them something to work with there even if Russia doesn't pursue a Ukraine-like confrontation with the US/a NATO state. Which to me aligns reasonably well with what Vol guy is suggesting.
Page 3653 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News