So...just let them do whatever they want? How do you think that'll end up?

It is a nightmare. But show me a better alternative than doing everything we can to stop them now.

Tyranny and communism are scourges upon humanity. They must be fought.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gustofer:
How do you think that'll end up?

I don't know and neither do you. We have done all we can do without destroying our own country, maybe.
Europe needs to figure out how to handle this. We can assist but we cannot resolve. Destroying our own country is only accomplishing one thing. Destroying our country.That is it.

If Russia ends up with a destroyed Ukraine. Half of it will be happy. I do not want to see our country destroyed. Many here are hell bent on trying to save Ukraine while seeing our country sucked down the shitter. And don't tell me that ain't gonna happen.

As Long as it Takes, Whatever it Costs...



What if it Costs us EVERYTHING...Our future, AND our country?

This is why I can't stand Tucker anymore. The first 5:15 is reasonable and intelligent.

Then he begins with the "Russian port of Crimea" and he lost me. Newsflash: Crimea is Ukrainian territory - agreed upon by...wait for it...Russia. Then we're putting American tanks in Red Square, according to him, and we're all going to die by incineration from nuclear weapons.

Jesus. This guy is getting you guys worked up into a lather. But, I suppose that's what they pay him for, so....

Sounds like the only one worked up is you.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
Sounds like the only one worked up is you.

Who's going bat-shit crazy about supporting Ukraine again? Remind me.

Well, the hags on The View are all about the U.S. going all in for Ukraine so you agreeing with them means they're earning their money, right?

Oh, forgot the rolleyes... here you go -

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
Sounds like the only one worked up is you.

Who's going bat-shit crazy about supporting Ukraine again? Remind me.

So, disagreeing with you means that person is batshit crazy? Sounds like you're using the Saul Alinsky playbook.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:


Who's going bat-shit crazy about supporting Ukraine again? Remind me.

OK. Ah yea, Never mind.

OK, guys.

Am I the only one having trouble determining who is on which side in this thread?

Let's shoot for less bickering and greater clarity.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Then he begins with the "Russian port of Crimea" and he lost me. Newsflash: Crimea is Ukrainian territory - agreed upon by...wait for it...Russia. Then we're putting American tanks in Red Square, according to him, and we're all going to die by incineration from nuclear weapons.

The Greeks owned it first. Then the Scythians. Then the Romans. Then the Genevese. Then the Tatars. Then Katherine The Great ordered Sevastapol built in 1784 after Russia annexed Crimea. It was not ordered built by a Ukrainian. Crimea was part of Ukraine from 1954 to 2014, but when the USSR collapsed, Sevastapol was leased to Russia. It's been a Russian port since then. It was a Russian port before that. It is a Russian port. If you'd like to educate me otherwise, I'm willing to listen, but I think that's most of the relevant history I can find. If you want to go back before the Greeks claimed it, that's fine, but I think the statute of limitations is up on anything pre-Christ in that part of the world.

When WWII kicked off, there were major fears that Hitler would use chemical weapons and gas. This wound up not coming to pass for various reasons. He could have done. In fact, his scientists developed some really nasty stuff like Sarin, Soman, Tabun, etc. As far as I know, none of that stuff was ever used during the war. It is possible that if this thing kicks off into the next big show that nukes never get used. Just because everyone since Einstein has said WWIII will be nuclear, it doesn't have to be. Putin and Xi could decide they'd rather just throw millions of bodies at whatever it is they want to grab, and if they don't, then we don't sort of thing. Again, if.

Let's not pretend that WWIII isn't a possibility here. It is. All kinds of things are possible, including Putin choking on his borscht tonight and nobody giving him the Heimlich and everyone goes home, or Xi deciding to airstrike Taiwan tomorrow, or us sending F16's to Kyiv and Russia shooting one down and giving it to China. All kinds of things. What we will have bought for the 6% of our annual defense budget still remains to be seen. I don't yet buy this notion that the utter destruction of one of our big rival super powers for cheap is exactly the outcome we'll see. These things take time, and nobody can see the future.

Sorry for the bickering Para. My position on this subject has been crystal clear from the start.

quote:

Well, the hags on The View are all about the U.S. going all in for Ukraine …

If everything else stayed the same, but Donald Trump were president, would they and the others still "support" Ukraine? I think we all know the answer to that.

I'm sure Sleepy Joe and his armada of foreign policy and military experts (thank God we are in intelligent and caring hands) are going to leave Ukraine in a very strong position and a Russia-China alliance barely able to hold their heads up. Just remember, if Joe stumbles Kamala is ready to take the helm. We're good to go with this one.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Well, the hags on The View are all about the U.S. going all in for Ukraine …

If everything else stayed the same, but Donald Trump were president, would they and the others still "support" Ukraine? I think we all know the answer to that.

That is an excellent "thought experiment" and yes, I think we all know the answer.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
As Long as it Takes, Whatever it Costs...

What if it Costs us EVERYTHING...Our future, AND our country?

I like Tucker. He's not always right, no one is, but he's willing to ask the questions others are afraid to address.


There are indeed many clueless who are being manipulated by propaganda and censorship.

There are also many who are corrupted by the military industrial complex (MIC), dependent on it for their livelihoods.

(1) “healthcare” and (2) the MIC are the two dominant economic sectors in the US now, directly fed by huge government fiat money. Notice how these are also the two areas now corrupted to effect profoundly evil machinations subverting and driving the US to downfall?

Everyone is locked in, debt slaves to the two machines with tentacles throughout the system.

It’s easy to understand how some see a coordinated Plan to bring the US down.

1. The decimation of the plandemic based on the 2-part bioweapon effecting continuing attrition.

2. The indefensible US push in Ukraine leading to war which will slam down a monetary and debt “reset” under totalitarian powers “necessary for security” in wartime.

The US is weakening itself by 1 and the first part of 2, along with the self-strangulation of energy and the subversions of cultural Marxism. When the war hits the US will have to fold. After that, a new “multipolar global governance” system, debt wiped clean, all under totalitarian control, wirh the dragon behind the curtain.

(See The Art of War and The 100 Year Plan.)

The problem with Carlson, as noted on this page, is that he takes things too far and makes them ridiculous. It seems to me that he didn't always do this, but he certainly does it now.

One only has to review history to know why we're armed the way we are (with nuclear weapons and very expensive high-tech conventional weapons) and what was the threat after the Second World War ended: The threats posed by Communism and the totalitarians in charge of it. If resolve isn't maintained we are the "Paper Tiger" we've been accused of being. One would have thought that WWII had taught us something and we'd have learned that isolationism is a pipe dream after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on us (December 8th), before we declared war on Germany (December 11th).

We had an under-equipped and ill trained military before Pearl Harbor and our loses showed it. After the sneak attack, we had distance, oceans, and a relatively weak technological benefit that gave us time to prepare for and make a difference in a world-wide conflict. Now? Those oceans and distance are far less meaningless. Time (to respond after an attack) has changed to being a much less significant factor, but we can still use the destructive resources we have if need be. But do we have the resolve to "live free or die"?

If the Russians (Putin) and Chinese didn't find our threat to utilize nuclear weapons credible, why should they hesitate to annihilate us now or even later?

As much as Chellim1 complains about government, he seems to limit his complaints to OUR government and fails to address the alternative: Submission to threats by the Russian and Chinese (or even North Korean and Iran) to our sovereignty. At least in America, he has the protections offered by our Constitution. If we were to submit to a direct threat by the communists (and IMHO Putin is as much a commie now as he was when the USSR existed), does Chellim1 believe we'd be better off living under their rules?

Putin want to reinstate the USSR and sees himself as the new Stalin. He views the Russian people as cannon fodder for his ambitions and clearly Ukraine is simply one of the first of other steps he has planned. I certainly believe Poland, Finland, other countries previously conquered by Putin's predecessor were/are considered "fair game" in his mind. China simply likes playing the spoiler and seeing two of it's opponents fighting among themselves. Regardless of intimations, China and Russian hate each other as much as the USSR and Germany hated each other prior to Germany's invasion of the USSR during the Second World War.

Simply put, it's in our best interest (as a NATO member as well as an independent nation) to see Putin's Russian bled dry by backing an intermediary. Putin has a lot of flesh to go through, but his inability to conquer Ukraine in over a year isn't just noteworthy, it's a huge clue as to the ineffective nature of his military's weapons, training, and troop morale. Some Americans talk about "Ukraine corruption", while ignoring the fact that the most corrupt Ukrainians were those who acted as vassals for the Russian state, before the last revolution. The current president had a perfect opportunity to take the money and run, when Biden offered him the chance a year ago, but he turned our (corrupt) "leader" down and asked for more bullets to fend off the Russians. If the Ukrainians were anywhere near as corrupt as the Russians and some people here claim, Ukraine would have collapsed months ago. It didn't, so I believe they've earned our support, just as the Brits did before and during the Second World War. Yea, and even that shitbag Stalin was our ally, if only because his bleeding the Germans on the Eastern Front allowed less American lives to be spent fighting without the USSR.

Like Ukraine or not, I believe investing in that country is in our own best interests, just like I believe investing in our military (including personnel, training, conventional weapons, and nukes) provides a long term benefit that those opposed to REAL national defense recognize. The more men fighting for Putin die (and a lesser number seem to be wounded, due to the lack of medical care for them), the better for us. The more conventional weapons that Russian uses that are destroyed or captured, the better for us. Ukraine has inspired nations such as Finland and even Sweden to consider joining NATO and I'm all for it. Let Russia rot for all I care. If they get strong, their natural inclination is to take from their neighbors at any cost. Raise those costs to the point they see invasions as not worth of the expense. THAT is in our best interests.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Putin has a lot of flesh to go through, but his inability to conquer Ukraine in over a year isn't just noteworthy, it's a huge clue as to the ineffective nature of his military's weapons, training, and troop morale.

This one statement would seem to contradict the entire premise of your post, and your justification that an 'All In for Ukraine' policy is in our best interests!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Putin has a lot of flesh to go through, but his inability to conquer Ukraine in over a year isn't just noteworthy, it's a huge clue as to the ineffective nature of his military's weapons, training, and troop morale.

This one statement would seem to contradict the entire premise of your post, and your justification that 'All In for Ukraine' is in our best interests!

Your assumption that I'm, "All in for Ukraine" is totally unsubstantiated by anything I said in my post. Did I suggest sending US troops, US jets flown by US pilots, or nukes? Nope. Did I suggest that the United States attack Russia? Nope. None of those things, but you claim I'm "all in"?

Nope, it's a claim based purely on exaggeration and supposition. Are there ways we can and should assist Ukraine in my opinion? Yes, but I don't think even Zelenskyy has asked for things like direct military involvement by our country or nuclear weapons.