- 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: The unwavering support of Ukraine
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:36 am to HVAU
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:36 am to HVAU
I’ll start by saying that outside of China no one has had a worse 100 years than Ukraine. What the Soviets, then the Germans and now the Russians have done to the people of Ukraine has been horrible beyond words and I hate the suffering those people have endured.
But you talk about national interest and from my perspective $110B has been spent on the defense of a nation we have no defense treaty with.
Money that we don’t have.
Money that if we were going to deficit spend could’ve had a significantly greater impact if spent in the US on schools, energy grid, on-shoring manufacturing, improving overall infrastructure or basically any other public works project you could name.
DC has been meddling in Ukrainian politics for over a decade and they kept pushing via our proxy leader until they got an actual war. It is a fact that the Zelenskyy admin had been pushing for a spot in NATO and Russia had indicated that was a redline. If Mexico or Canada attempted to join an alliance with China I’m sure military intervention would be on the table too.
You think it’s worth our money to stop Putin, Id argue had we stayed out of their political process from the beginning all the people who’ve died in this conflict would still be alive and we wouldn’t be $110B poorer while having pushed neutral players like India, Brazil and others into the open arms of our enemies, thus hastening the end of the petro dollar.
The potential rise of a competitor to the dollar is the most catastrophic outcome of the whole situation from a strategic perspective and could legitimately destabilize our entire economy and lead to our collapse.
But you talk about national interest and from my perspective $110B has been spent on the defense of a nation we have no defense treaty with.
Money that we don’t have.
Money that if we were going to deficit spend could’ve had a significantly greater impact if spent in the US on schools, energy grid, on-shoring manufacturing, improving overall infrastructure or basically any other public works project you could name.
DC has been meddling in Ukrainian politics for over a decade and they kept pushing via our proxy leader until they got an actual war. It is a fact that the Zelenskyy admin had been pushing for a spot in NATO and Russia had indicated that was a redline. If Mexico or Canada attempted to join an alliance with China I’m sure military intervention would be on the table too.
You think it’s worth our money to stop Putin, Id argue had we stayed out of their political process from the beginning all the people who’ve died in this conflict would still be alive and we wouldn’t be $110B poorer while having pushed neutral players like India, Brazil and others into the open arms of our enemies, thus hastening the end of the petro dollar.
The potential rise of a competitor to the dollar is the most catastrophic outcome of the whole situation from a strategic perspective and could legitimately destabilize our entire economy and lead to our collapse.
This post was edited on 9/21/23 at 10:37 am
1
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:50 am to HVAU
So HVAU, should there be any limit to the US support of Ukraine? If we have to be bankrupt for Ukraine to survive, is that an acceptable outcome? If it lowers the defense readiness of the US, but Ukraine survives, is that acceptable? I honestly want your real opinion on these questions.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:51 am to HVAU
quote:
Are you guys really too bogged down in the political quagmire to puzzle out the benefits of preventing Russia from rebuilding the Soviet empire, and doing so by proxy?
Yes, they are.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:51 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
So HVAU, should there be any limit to the US support of Ukraine?
He doesn't answer those sort of questions, peon. Trust the plan.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:54 am to Ribbed
That's one of the things that completely boggles my mind. Especially after the last 3 years, how could you believe the US gov has your best interest at heart? Rush used to have a brilliant analogy. On minimum wage, the left would always argue that it should be raised. No one should live in poverty. He said he agreed. Lets raise it to $20 an hour. Better yet, lets make everyone wealthy, make it $50 an hour. Heck, lets make everyone have the best lives possible and raise it to $100 an hour. The left would then balk and say that was too much. I mean if our goal is to get people out of poverty and give them the best life possible, then why not give them that much?
The same goes for Ukraine. If our GOAL is to prevent them from being overrun from Russia, there should be no limit to the amount of monetary support we give them, right?
This post was edited on 9/21/23 at 10:59 am
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:57 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:This one gets those in charge their kickbacks. There's no other explanation for all these "crises" that have the leadership's undivided attention than the fact that they're getting paid. We need to lock every one of them up and confiscate everything they own except for their underwear. And that's not for their benefit, but for ours.
Countries have been battling and taking over other countries for millennia. There has never been world peace. What makes this conflict any more important than others?
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:02 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
The same goes for Ukraine. If our GOAL is to prevent them from being overrun from Russia, there should be no limit to the amount of monetary support we give them, right?
The good news is there's no amount of your money they're not willing to spend while virtue signalling to each other and rubbing their dicks together.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:04 am to tide06
quote:
But you talk about national interest and from my perspective $110B has been spent on the defense of a nation we have no defense treaty with.
Not exactly, but we do have a signed agreement between us, Ukraine, France, China, and Russia to leave Ukraine alone in exchange for them giving up nuclear weapons when they had the 3rd largest arsenal in the world, and Russia is violating the hell out of that agreement.
quote:
Money that we don’t have.
It's also an insignificant amount in the context of our entire budget.
I've posted this before, but if you are concerned about us spending money we don't have, you need to target SS and Medicare.
As it is, you're bitching about the fact that your wife bought name brand peanut butter instead of the generic version while paying a $6,000 mortgage and carrying car notes for an additional $3,000 a month.
It's just tribal political bullshite.
Those ridiculing common sense in 2023 because it's "too 80s," two things:
1. Realize you are parroting Barack Obama with your "The 80s called and they want their foreign policy back." That company should tell you something about your stance.
2. Foreign policy in the 80s worked out very well for the US.
Those who have pointed out that Russia will not stop with Ukraine, the next country is going to be a NATO country (whom we are obligated to defend), and if we have to send troops on the ground we'll be talking about trillions of dollars spent instead of billions.
AND we'll be looking at WWIII.
Those people?...they are obviously correct.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:06 am to wackatimesthree
So again then I ask, what is the limit to the amount we are willing to GIVE to Ukraine?
I get the pie in the sky theory that Putin is gonna invade a NATO country and all that rhetoric out there. But when the bills actually come due, what is the amount that we are willing to outlay for Ukraine?
I get the pie in the sky theory that Putin is gonna invade a NATO country and all that rhetoric out there. But when the bills actually come due, what is the amount that we are willing to outlay for Ukraine?
This post was edited on 9/21/23 at 11:08 am
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:08 am to LuckyTiger
Weakening Russia.
Showing China we mean business lol. 
Showing China we mean business lol.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:09 am to wackatimesthree
I've posted this before, but if you are concerned about us spending money we don't have, you need to target SS and Medicare.
Holy Hell bro
Holy Hell bro
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:13 am to Ribbed
quote:
You're sounding a bit cranky anyway.
He sounds like count
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:17 am to Eurocat
quote:
Canada would have a tough time defending itself if America wasn't next to it, should it cease to exist?
Given their light-speed descent into socialist authoritarianism, I'm gonna say, "Sure."
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:22 am to RoosterCogburn585
20% of the money gets used for war purposes and this benefited the MIC who kick back a portion to American politicians.
80% of the money gets flat out lost and this is stolen by American, Ukrainian, and I suspect Russian politicians.
80% of the money gets flat out lost and this is stolen by American, Ukrainian, and I suspect Russian politicians.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:25 am to RoosterCogburn585
The average American supporting the bloodbath in Ukraine is either an idiot or only hears what MSM says about Ukraine. The elected official's supporting it are getting paid in some form or fashion to support it.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:31 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
Can the board's huge Ukraine supporters explain to me what benefit we are getting from assisting a country that can't even afford to defend itself? Call me crazy, but if a country can't afford its own defense, maybe it shouldn't be a country to begin with.
I would like the Ukraine supporters to explain to me why the Ukraine/Russia shite show is the responsibility of the US to spearhead? The Ukraine/Russia conflict was 100% avoidable. The illegitimate regime and NATO invited the aggression of Russia because Russia perceived nothing but weakness after a rigged 2020 GE and the installed regime shitting itself during the Afghanistan Withdrawal Debacle.
If the EU would have pumped a hundred billion or so into Ukraine to repel the Russians early on then I would have no problem giving some money to Ukraine for humanitarian reasons but to foot the bill for a proxy war between the US and Russia via a corrupt Ukrainian regime is idiotic.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:34 am to themunch
quote:
Weakening Russia. Showing China we mean business lol.
Alternate theory: Depleting our resources, disassembling our military, and sowing discord to support China's plans for emergence as a superpower.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:35 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Foreign policy in the 80s worked out very well for the US.
If by well you mean we funded and allied with the Mujahideen and Saddam Hussein, two entities with which we were at war decades later, I guess you're right.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:38 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
If by well you mean we funded and allied with the Mujahideen and Saddam Hussein, two entities with which we were at war decades later,
That's not fair. Most of the people who set that up were retired by that time and a new bunch of retards was making decisions.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 11:41 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
what benefit we are getting from assisting a country that can't even afford to defend itself?
Ask Trump. He bragged during the 2019/2020 election cycle that he made the decision to send Ukraine Javeline missiles. He even made fun of Obama for only sending "food and blankets" while he was committed to sending ammo.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News