Oh, come on, really? We (the US, NATO) are getting more and more involved in that war. Now Biden says he's sending Ukraine missiles capable of reaching deep into Russia. Why? I completely understand why we aren't happy with Russia attacking Ukraine (though it annoys me that nobody on the Western side pushing the war understands the West'…
Oh, come on, really? We (the US, NATO) are getting more and more involved in that war. Now Biden says he's sending Ukraine missiles capable of reaching deep into Russia. Why? I completely understand why we aren't happy with Russia attacking Ukraine (though it annoys me that nobody on the Western side pushing the war understands the West's role in provoking it); what I don't get, and don't like, is this almost religious belief that this thing couldn't spiral out of control. Moreover, I don't see that Russia is planning to attack NATO countries. Ukraine is not in NATO!
"Now Biden says he's sending Ukraine missiles capable of reaching deep into Russia. Why?"
Why? Because Russia continues to bomb the snot out of Ukrainian cities, Rod, and the Ukrainians are actually fighting back. They don't want to be a Russian servile state. Ukraine has all sorts of historic knowledge regarding how Russians treat them. But, I don't think you're right about 'deep into Russia'. I think these will be used (if they actually make it there) to destroy military targets in Russian-held territory, including Crimea to cripple Putin's ability to keep his troops (invaders) supplied.
But, I think I am right in pointing out that you would have seen Reagan as a warmonger and way out of line to risk WWIII. Was Reagan right to fight the expansion of the Soviet Union and communism? Was he right to call their bluff and challenge them? Was he wrong to call them 'the evil empire'? Before that, was The West right to do the Berlin Airlift after Stalin decided to try and choke the life out of all of Berlin? Of course, there are risks. And there are rewards for pushing back against tyranny, especially when the underlying political dogma is that of totalitarianism.
Of course Reagan was right to do those things. But you know what? Ukraine is on Russia's border. I don't blame the Ukrainians for fighting back. But this is a war that is a very high risk for the US, and for what? What is the reward that makes the risk of Russian cities being bombed with US missiles worthwhile? If we have to fight World War III with Russia, well, then we have to do it -- but this is a war of choice for NATO. Do you really think it is America's obligation to fight tyranny anywhere in the world? Do you think Russia has no legitimate security concerns about NATO bases in Ukraine? Do you think the US would have legitimate reasons to go to war to stop Mexico from welcoming an alliance with China that would put Chinese bases in Mexico, which is Mexico's sovereign right? I do.
I think it terrible that Tibet does not have its independence and that its culture is being slowly dissolved. But I don't think any sane person advocates war with China. Tibet is somewhat similar to Ukraine in that both were rarely independent of the large states they border.
Your Mexican example is correct. If China or Russia or North Korea built bases in Matamoros and made an alliance with Mexico, we'd have to act. Yet, as an independent country, Mexico has the right to ally itself with any country they wish.
Here we go again with the "Mexican" analogy-- which totally ignores the fact that we actually faced a neighboring country becoming an ally of a hostile power and did not invade it with slaughter and rapine, though, no, we weren't nice to Cuba either.
"And for what?" Exactly!! If we presume to posture that our concerns are for Russia quickly creeping further beyond Ukraine into NATO countries, that means we (the US specifically) are already fighting a war we've only imagined. Imagination and 'possibility' are mighty weak reasons for which we seem to be pledging our financial resources and military readiness (arms and weapons capacity - and if spooled out, troops, which we may as well go on and add in to our imagined scenario). Good (read: effective) geopolitical strategy is not (or should not be) a guessing game of whack-a-mole, which, for those defending our assistance in Ukraine as 'restraining' Russian ambition, is all this amounts to at the moment. BUT good geopolitical strategy is also not what we did to Iraq or even, I believe, to Afghanistan - or to Vietnam. Etc. The way I see it, and I am not a military history scholar or a political science savant by any means - mea culpa: our gov & military mistook our ultimately triumphant performance in WWII for a national purpose into infinity. Simple as that - with very little acknowledgement, the further from that war that we get, of the very specific strategic and national reasons/purpose from which we ultimately chose to re/act. We've pasted that purpose over everything that has come up in the meantime, between then and Ukraine, and we've accomplished very little in regards to 'safeguarding' our country or resources from ultimate decline on the world stage. Where we have gotten it right was where Kennedy and Reagan read the tea leaves of the precise moment and acted - or did not - and preserved what was in our actual, immediate interest to preserve. But this galavanting all over to rattle sabers and crush other cultures because we feel like they're, essentially, wrong somehow (because they aren't us?) is neither useful nor sustainable. Failure of imagination, indeed! That Biden & Co have grasped this 'imagination of purpose' and are using it as a cudgel with which to beat the US into ignoring the sweeping corruption that they've installed in or allowed to proliferate in Ukraine is just beyond the pale - and yet, that's exactly what I see happening. Russia bad; must defeat to prevent possible more bad - with a wink wink to protect the US 'interests' (labs, money laundering) in Ukraine. So cynical, I know, but from my very uneducated view, exactly what we're doing. Excuse the rant! Carry on...
" Do you really think it is America's obligation to fight tyranny anywhere in the world?"
No. But, this is not just 'anywhere in the world'. You know that. The 19th and 20th centuries showed just how sideways things can go in Europe and we have legitimate reasons to try to prevent that happening again.
" If we have to fight World War III with Russia, well, then we have to do it -- but this is a war of choice for NATO."
I think that's hyperbole. Putin wants no part of an all out war with NATO. He's not stupid or crazy. He wants to begin the reconstitution of either the Soviet Union or some form of the old Russian empire. He's throwing threats around to see just how much he can get away with.
"... but this is a war of choice for NATO."
Well, first - Russia invaded! Putin will not stop with eastern Ukraine and Crimea. I'm certain of that. You disagree. Even pacifist Germany finally sees what is in store for itself in due time. It's also why both Sweden and Finland wasted no time asking to join NATO. They all fear Russia and its intentions. Nothing good will come from a revanchist Russia and everyone in that neck of the woods knows it.
"Do you think Russia has no legitimate security concerns about NATO bases in Ukraine?"
I think Putin and Russia are a direct threat to anyone in its vicinity. There's a reason so many countries that are on Russia's border want to join NATO - Putin is a despot who murders his political enemies wherever he can find them and Russia has a long history of trouncing all over the rights of its neighbors. As far as I am concerned, Putin's behavior (including murdering people on foreign soil) makes his claims illegitimate. He's a thug.
"Do you think the US would have legitimate reasons to go to war to stop Mexico from welcoming an alliance with China that would put Chinese bases in Mexico, which is Mexico's sovereign right? I do."
Actually, I don't think we would be in the right to do that. Mexico, as you say, is a sovereign state. But, I am aware of the Monroe Doctrine and I aware of the history regarding the Cuban missile crisis. But, you know what? We should not be dictating our position in the world based on what a third rate failed communist dictatorship with a murderous autocrat in charge demands of us. Russia is a miserable, failed state and we should not let it dictate how we make our way in the world and who we decide are our friends. (Agree to disagree here, I know!)
Regarding China, they have claimed ownership of much of the South China Sea in clear violation of international law. Bases in Mexico? I can't see Mexico doing that. That's a tough one. But, I'm pretty sure we will be in conflict with China for some time to come just like we were with the USSR. I believe the world has always be a tough place and it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I think the philosophy of talking softly but carrying a big stick (making sure it is the biggest stick of the bunch) is the right way to approach our security as well as the security of our friends.
I have a 'Demon' question for you, Rod. I know you see possible links between some of the truly despicable people within the far left who are, as I see it, trying to prey on children and actual religious demons as Christians may define them. I don't believe in religious demons but I do believe there is real evil in the world.
I kinda see Putin as a demon, or at least embodied evil. He has so much blood on his hands, not just in Ukraine but elsewhere. It's really something when you have a guy on your payroll called 'General Armageddon' (and he truly earned that title). His troops rape and torture people - that's not disputed. He has overseen the snatching away of Ukrainian children to Russia. And - here's the thing that sticks with me: He has co-opted the Russian Orthodox Church and claimed, via Kyril, that his actions are, effectively, approved by God. He's perverted the Church. He's perverted the idea of Christ, I think. That claim of religious righteousness is sickening. I'm OK with you likening some of the worst among us as perhaps being actual demons in this world. But, doesn't Putin deserve some consideration?
Tyranny, no. Expansionism, well, yes. The surest path to nuclear war is a return to the free-for-all of the 18th century when powerful nations grabbed whatever territory they could, ultimately sending Europe into the maelstrom of revolution and Napoleon.
Why is it our concern? I think Putin has every intention of expanding his territorial holdings. I am certain that if he remains in eastern Ukraine and the war ends with Russia there, it will only be a matter of months until the Wagner boys or some other little green men begin making mischief and pushing westward into the rest of Ukraine. I believe Putin wants to re-establish some measure of the Soviet Union. He has basically stated that and written about it. I think he will look to destabilize the Baltic countries even though they are part of NATO. If little green men start showing up and causing issues there (kinda like what is happening in Moldova) and NATO makes threats he will just declare that if NATO pushes back he will nuke someone.
So, I think him having picked a fight with Ukraine was a huge mistake and this is an opportunity to severely deplete his ability to make mischief for nations that want no part of Russia's 'friendship'. But, the most important part is Ukrainians wants to shove him out of Ukraine. Nobody has a gun to the head of the Ukrainians. They WANT to fight.
1) They voted in a pro-Russian government. We didn't like that and engineered a coup which brought another government in to power.
2) This was AFTER Georgia, in which Putin demonstrated AGAIN what he is made of. It is not pleasant, but he is not afraid to show it.
3) Lavrov 19 months ago came out with hard but not impossible terms for the Donbass, which Zelinsky either temporized over or ignored.
4) So Putin acted.
I don't like seeing dead babies in the street, so opting for war under these conditions is immoral to begin with. But we are up to our necks in this, and it's time we blew the whistle. Even Kagan concedes there is no U.S. national interest in Donbass, or all of Ukraine for that matter. As far as the "international order" cult, where the U.S. runs to the rescue of anybody who whines loud enough, that's a fantasy.
"1) They voted in a pro-Russian government. We didn't like that and engineered a coup which brought another government in to power."
That's not what I've read. The overthrow occurred because there was a commitment by Viktor Yanukovych to brink Ukraine closer to the west for economic reasons and then he backed away from that. He sold one story and then changed his mind due to pressure from Putin. Ukrainians saw nothing good, economically, from being in the the Russian sphere. They were angry. It's not like it was 50 disgruntled soldiers who effected the coup 'we engineered'. I think there's a bit more to the story than what you stated.
"2) This was AFTER Georgia, in which Putin demonstrated AGAIN what he is made of. It is not pleasant, but he is not afraid to show it."
I agree with you, completely. That's why so many of his neighbors are worried. It's why he single-handedly was able to get both Sweden and Finland to forego their pledges of neutrality and join NATO. Demonstrating you are willing to bring death and destruction to your neighbors who resist your invitations to be under your control doesn't give you the right to do it. I'm all in for helping fortify them so they can defend themselves.
"3) Lavrov 19 months ago came out with hard but not impossible terms for the Donbass, which Zelinsky either temporized over or ignored."
Ha. Like Putin, I think most everyone knows what Lavrov is about. I'm sure he was seeking a fair settlement for both sides. I'm guessing it was pretty much, "Here are our terms: We're seizing land for Russia, take it or leave it. If you don't agree, the death and destruction will continue." Well, one can ask.
"4) So Putin acted."
That he did. And he will again. He's not done. All of his neighbors know this. War will continue if he is successful in Ukraine and this will be bad for the whole world. Nothing good will come from a Europe that is at war again.
Even if you grant him everything has has claimed, he had no right to invade. He could have cut off gas supplies to Germany and Ukraine. He could have messed with the oil markets. There are other markets Russia is a strong player in. He could have put serious economic harm onto countries. There wasn't a single Ukrainian or NATO attack or incursion into Russia, btw. So, just focusing on the NATO argument, he makes the case that he gets to call the shots for other sovereign nations that once belonged to his failed, communist Soviet Union and the world should give him that power because why? Because he will kill those who oppose him and he has nukes. He's Europe's Kim Jong Un.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Well, history has shown that what happens in certain parts of the world end up affecting our country, eventually. Then again, maybe it will be different this time.
Have you ever seen the movie Das Boot? There's a scene where the sub in trying to avoid the British depth charges goes so deep the rivets in the bulkheads start popping like Champagne corks. The ginger engineer has a nervous breakdown.
That's what's happening in this country. We're going to implode in on ourselves. Grant everything you say in your other post, and I don't (there's nothing more tedious that arguing the facts), to go off and try to solve problems in the hinterlands of Europe in the state we're in is lunacy.
Sean Penn says that we can't be afraid of nuclear war. Take it from Sean Penn, things won't spin out of control. Say the possibility is "extremely low", so there. You - or anybody - know better than Sean Penn? Huh, huh?
And Sean Penn has more props than anybody commenting here, 10,000 times more props, so we're going in. Oh, yeah. This is the big one.
The ONLY thing that will 100% rule out direct conflict with Russia at this point is the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency in 2024. Think on that.
Oh, come on, really? We (the US, NATO) are getting more and more involved in that war. Now Biden says he's sending Ukraine missiles capable of reaching deep into Russia. Why? I completely understand why we aren't happy with Russia attacking Ukraine (though it annoys me that nobody on the Western side pushing the war understands the West's role in provoking it); what I don't get, and don't like, is this almost religious belief that this thing couldn't spiral out of control. Moreover, I don't see that Russia is planning to attack NATO countries. Ukraine is not in NATO!
"Now Biden says he's sending Ukraine missiles capable of reaching deep into Russia. Why?"
Why? Because Russia continues to bomb the snot out of Ukrainian cities, Rod, and the Ukrainians are actually fighting back. They don't want to be a Russian servile state. Ukraine has all sorts of historic knowledge regarding how Russians treat them. But, I don't think you're right about 'deep into Russia'. I think these will be used (if they actually make it there) to destroy military targets in Russian-held territory, including Crimea to cripple Putin's ability to keep his troops (invaders) supplied.
But, I think I am right in pointing out that you would have seen Reagan as a warmonger and way out of line to risk WWIII. Was Reagan right to fight the expansion of the Soviet Union and communism? Was he right to call their bluff and challenge them? Was he wrong to call them 'the evil empire'? Before that, was The West right to do the Berlin Airlift after Stalin decided to try and choke the life out of all of Berlin? Of course, there are risks. And there are rewards for pushing back against tyranny, especially when the underlying political dogma is that of totalitarianism.
Of course Reagan was right to do those things. But you know what? Ukraine is on Russia's border. I don't blame the Ukrainians for fighting back. But this is a war that is a very high risk for the US, and for what? What is the reward that makes the risk of Russian cities being bombed with US missiles worthwhile? If we have to fight World War III with Russia, well, then we have to do it -- but this is a war of choice for NATO. Do you really think it is America's obligation to fight tyranny anywhere in the world? Do you think Russia has no legitimate security concerns about NATO bases in Ukraine? Do you think the US would have legitimate reasons to go to war to stop Mexico from welcoming an alliance with China that would put Chinese bases in Mexico, which is Mexico's sovereign right? I do.
I think it terrible that Tibet does not have its independence and that its culture is being slowly dissolved. But I don't think any sane person advocates war with China. Tibet is somewhat similar to Ukraine in that both were rarely independent of the large states they border.
Your Mexican example is correct. If China or Russia or North Korea built bases in Matamoros and made an alliance with Mexico, we'd have to act. Yet, as an independent country, Mexico has the right to ally itself with any country they wish.
Here we go again with the "Mexican" analogy-- which totally ignores the fact that we actually faced a neighboring country becoming an ally of a hostile power and did not invade it with slaughter and rapine, though, no, we weren't nice to Cuba either.
"And for what?" Exactly!! If we presume to posture that our concerns are for Russia quickly creeping further beyond Ukraine into NATO countries, that means we (the US specifically) are already fighting a war we've only imagined. Imagination and 'possibility' are mighty weak reasons for which we seem to be pledging our financial resources and military readiness (arms and weapons capacity - and if spooled out, troops, which we may as well go on and add in to our imagined scenario). Good (read: effective) geopolitical strategy is not (or should not be) a guessing game of whack-a-mole, which, for those defending our assistance in Ukraine as 'restraining' Russian ambition, is all this amounts to at the moment. BUT good geopolitical strategy is also not what we did to Iraq or even, I believe, to Afghanistan - or to Vietnam. Etc. The way I see it, and I am not a military history scholar or a political science savant by any means - mea culpa: our gov & military mistook our ultimately triumphant performance in WWII for a national purpose into infinity. Simple as that - with very little acknowledgement, the further from that war that we get, of the very specific strategic and national reasons/purpose from which we ultimately chose to re/act. We've pasted that purpose over everything that has come up in the meantime, between then and Ukraine, and we've accomplished very little in regards to 'safeguarding' our country or resources from ultimate decline on the world stage. Where we have gotten it right was where Kennedy and Reagan read the tea leaves of the precise moment and acted - or did not - and preserved what was in our actual, immediate interest to preserve. But this galavanting all over to rattle sabers and crush other cultures because we feel like they're, essentially, wrong somehow (because they aren't us?) is neither useful nor sustainable. Failure of imagination, indeed! That Biden & Co have grasped this 'imagination of purpose' and are using it as a cudgel with which to beat the US into ignoring the sweeping corruption that they've installed in or allowed to proliferate in Ukraine is just beyond the pale - and yet, that's exactly what I see happening. Russia bad; must defeat to prevent possible more bad - with a wink wink to protect the US 'interests' (labs, money laundering) in Ukraine. So cynical, I know, but from my very uneducated view, exactly what we're doing. Excuse the rant! Carry on...
" Do you really think it is America's obligation to fight tyranny anywhere in the world?"
No. But, this is not just 'anywhere in the world'. You know that. The 19th and 20th centuries showed just how sideways things can go in Europe and we have legitimate reasons to try to prevent that happening again.
" If we have to fight World War III with Russia, well, then we have to do it -- but this is a war of choice for NATO."
I think that's hyperbole. Putin wants no part of an all out war with NATO. He's not stupid or crazy. He wants to begin the reconstitution of either the Soviet Union or some form of the old Russian empire. He's throwing threats around to see just how much he can get away with.
"... but this is a war of choice for NATO."
Well, first - Russia invaded! Putin will not stop with eastern Ukraine and Crimea. I'm certain of that. You disagree. Even pacifist Germany finally sees what is in store for itself in due time. It's also why both Sweden and Finland wasted no time asking to join NATO. They all fear Russia and its intentions. Nothing good will come from a revanchist Russia and everyone in that neck of the woods knows it.
"Do you think Russia has no legitimate security concerns about NATO bases in Ukraine?"
I think Putin and Russia are a direct threat to anyone in its vicinity. There's a reason so many countries that are on Russia's border want to join NATO - Putin is a despot who murders his political enemies wherever he can find them and Russia has a long history of trouncing all over the rights of its neighbors. As far as I am concerned, Putin's behavior (including murdering people on foreign soil) makes his claims illegitimate. He's a thug.
"Do you think the US would have legitimate reasons to go to war to stop Mexico from welcoming an alliance with China that would put Chinese bases in Mexico, which is Mexico's sovereign right? I do."
Actually, I don't think we would be in the right to do that. Mexico, as you say, is a sovereign state. But, I am aware of the Monroe Doctrine and I aware of the history regarding the Cuban missile crisis. But, you know what? We should not be dictating our position in the world based on what a third rate failed communist dictatorship with a murderous autocrat in charge demands of us. Russia is a miserable, failed state and we should not let it dictate how we make our way in the world and who we decide are our friends. (Agree to disagree here, I know!)
Regarding China, they have claimed ownership of much of the South China Sea in clear violation of international law. Bases in Mexico? I can't see Mexico doing that. That's a tough one. But, I'm pretty sure we will be in conflict with China for some time to come just like we were with the USSR. I believe the world has always be a tough place and it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I think the philosophy of talking softly but carrying a big stick (making sure it is the biggest stick of the bunch) is the right way to approach our security as well as the security of our friends.
I have a 'Demon' question for you, Rod. I know you see possible links between some of the truly despicable people within the far left who are, as I see it, trying to prey on children and actual religious demons as Christians may define them. I don't believe in religious demons but I do believe there is real evil in the world.
I kinda see Putin as a demon, or at least embodied evil. He has so much blood on his hands, not just in Ukraine but elsewhere. It's really something when you have a guy on your payroll called 'General Armageddon' (and he truly earned that title). His troops rape and torture people - that's not disputed. He has overseen the snatching away of Ukrainian children to Russia. And - here's the thing that sticks with me: He has co-opted the Russian Orthodox Church and claimed, via Kyril, that his actions are, effectively, approved by God. He's perverted the Church. He's perverted the idea of Christ, I think. That claim of religious righteousness is sickening. I'm OK with you likening some of the worst among us as perhaps being actual demons in this world. But, doesn't Putin deserve some consideration?
Tyranny, no. Expansionism, well, yes. The surest path to nuclear war is a return to the free-for-all of the 18th century when powerful nations grabbed whatever territory they could, ultimately sending Europe into the maelstrom of revolution and Napoleon.
"They don't want to be a Russian servile state."
The word you're looking for is "client". And they don't have a choice. Why is it our concern?
Why is it our concern? I think Putin has every intention of expanding his territorial holdings. I am certain that if he remains in eastern Ukraine and the war ends with Russia there, it will only be a matter of months until the Wagner boys or some other little green men begin making mischief and pushing westward into the rest of Ukraine. I believe Putin wants to re-establish some measure of the Soviet Union. He has basically stated that and written about it. I think he will look to destabilize the Baltic countries even though they are part of NATO. If little green men start showing up and causing issues there (kinda like what is happening in Moldova) and NATO makes threats he will just declare that if NATO pushes back he will nuke someone.
So, I think him having picked a fight with Ukraine was a huge mistake and this is an opportunity to severely deplete his ability to make mischief for nations that want no part of Russia's 'friendship'. But, the most important part is Ukrainians wants to shove him out of Ukraine. Nobody has a gun to the head of the Ukrainians. They WANT to fight.
Bully for them. My concern is with this country.
1) They voted in a pro-Russian government. We didn't like that and engineered a coup which brought another government in to power.
2) This was AFTER Georgia, in which Putin demonstrated AGAIN what he is made of. It is not pleasant, but he is not afraid to show it.
3) Lavrov 19 months ago came out with hard but not impossible terms for the Donbass, which Zelinsky either temporized over or ignored.
4) So Putin acted.
I don't like seeing dead babies in the street, so opting for war under these conditions is immoral to begin with. But we are up to our necks in this, and it's time we blew the whistle. Even Kagan concedes there is no U.S. national interest in Donbass, or all of Ukraine for that matter. As far as the "international order" cult, where the U.S. runs to the rescue of anybody who whines loud enough, that's a fantasy.
"1) They voted in a pro-Russian government. We didn't like that and engineered a coup which brought another government in to power."
That's not what I've read. The overthrow occurred because there was a commitment by Viktor Yanukovych to brink Ukraine closer to the west for economic reasons and then he backed away from that. He sold one story and then changed his mind due to pressure from Putin. Ukrainians saw nothing good, economically, from being in the the Russian sphere. They were angry. It's not like it was 50 disgruntled soldiers who effected the coup 'we engineered'. I think there's a bit more to the story than what you stated.
"2) This was AFTER Georgia, in which Putin demonstrated AGAIN what he is made of. It is not pleasant, but he is not afraid to show it."
I agree with you, completely. That's why so many of his neighbors are worried. It's why he single-handedly was able to get both Sweden and Finland to forego their pledges of neutrality and join NATO. Demonstrating you are willing to bring death and destruction to your neighbors who resist your invitations to be under your control doesn't give you the right to do it. I'm all in for helping fortify them so they can defend themselves.
"3) Lavrov 19 months ago came out with hard but not impossible terms for the Donbass, which Zelinsky either temporized over or ignored."
Ha. Like Putin, I think most everyone knows what Lavrov is about. I'm sure he was seeking a fair settlement for both sides. I'm guessing it was pretty much, "Here are our terms: We're seizing land for Russia, take it or leave it. If you don't agree, the death and destruction will continue." Well, one can ask.
"4) So Putin acted."
That he did. And he will again. He's not done. All of his neighbors know this. War will continue if he is successful in Ukraine and this will be bad for the whole world. Nothing good will come from a Europe that is at war again.
Even if you grant him everything has has claimed, he had no right to invade. He could have cut off gas supplies to Germany and Ukraine. He could have messed with the oil markets. There are other markets Russia is a strong player in. He could have put serious economic harm onto countries. There wasn't a single Ukrainian or NATO attack or incursion into Russia, btw. So, just focusing on the NATO argument, he makes the case that he gets to call the shots for other sovereign nations that once belonged to his failed, communist Soviet Union and the world should give him that power because why? Because he will kill those who oppose him and he has nukes. He's Europe's Kim Jong Un.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
"My concern is with this country."
Well, history has shown that what happens in certain parts of the world end up affecting our country, eventually. Then again, maybe it will be different this time.
Have you ever seen the movie Das Boot? There's a scene where the sub in trying to avoid the British depth charges goes so deep the rivets in the bulkheads start popping like Champagne corks. The ginger engineer has a nervous breakdown.
That's what's happening in this country. We're going to implode in on ourselves. Grant everything you say in your other post, and I don't (there's nothing more tedious that arguing the facts), to go off and try to solve problems in the hinterlands of Europe in the state we're in is lunacy.
Deo gratias.
Sean Penn says that we can't be afraid of nuclear war. Take it from Sean Penn, things won't spin out of control. Say the possibility is "extremely low", so there. You - or anybody - know better than Sean Penn? Huh, huh?
And Sean Penn has more props than anybody commenting here, 10,000 times more props, so we're going in. Oh, yeah. This is the big one.
The ONLY thing that will 100% rule out direct conflict with Russia at this point is the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency in 2024. Think on that.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sean-penn-face-the-nation-transcript-09-17-2023/
Well, you're talking about Spicoli.
" What Jefferson was saying was: If we don't get some cool rules.... pronto, we'll just be bogus ourselves.'
I still laugh about the scene where Spicoli orders a pizza to be delivered but the teacher (Ray Walston) takes it away from him.
Actually 'Spicoli' is not the idiot he played. View his documentary "Witch Hunt".
If the US isn't getting dragged into "boots on the ground", who are these US soldiers being treated at Landstuhl (Germany)? https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2023-09-25/americans-injured-ukraine-treated-landstuhl-11484763.html