More Supporting Evidence

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2024, 02:20 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: When the outcome is bad guys win and expand their empire and global power, and they are our enemy routinely interfering in our elections and hacking, yes. I have always felt we are the good guys. That whole evil prevails when good men do nothing really fits the bill here imo.

No, I was talking about the early days of the war in Ukraine before the mad man killed his pal who ran the wagner mercenaries. I don't have much faith the convicts recruited out of prison to fight for russia are treating Ukrainians any better.

That was the convenient way for me to incorporate the bottomless  barrel of money that was the Iraq and Afghanistan war. I've tried to stay out of that religious war thread/s. If you don't have anything nice to say...

You're rather dodging the point.  I don't think you'll find many people Dem or GOP, who don't agree that Russia is an aggressor and that Putin is a dictator.  The question, which you won't answer, is how much is too much to pay?  Where is the line?  Is there a line?  Maybe for you there isn't one.  But someone actually having ne doesn'yt mean they're pro-Russian or a Putin-bot.  One of the biggest issues we run into on this board is the utter inability to understand a person's position while also disagreeing with it.   This thread is a literal mast class in that phenomena.  

[samhain]

(04-09-2024, 10:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're rather dodging the point.  I don't think you'll find many people Dem or GOP, who don't agree that Russia is an aggressor and that Putin is a dictator.  The question, which you won't answer, is how much is too much to pay?  Where is the line?  Is there a line?  Maybe for you there isn't one.  But someone actually having ne doesn'yt mean they're pro-Russian or a Putin-bot.  One of the biggest issues we run into on this board is the utter inability to understand a person's position while also disagreeing with it.   This thread is a literal mast class in that phenomena.  

I'd like to agree but can't.  I think there are many in the conservative media such as Carlson and even Joe Rogan (who sadly has really swallowed this one hook, line, and sinker) who very openly paint Russia as a nation surrounded by NATO enemies with hostile intent.  Putin has always been a venerated figure on the far right, or at least since it became apparent that he openly despised Hillary and Obama. He's not "woke" after all, and he's also kinda churchy and that's the only real requirement to appeal to much of that crowd.  To them, Russia was bullied into this situation and had no choice but to invade.  To me this line of argument (not saying it's your argument) is a pile of horseshit that you'd have to be stupid or just plain apatheic to speak into being.  Russia thought as many did that it would be a walk to take Ukraine.  They had no idea of how much resistance they'd encounter, and they most definitely did not expect the West to coalesce in support as they have.  It was never a "forced" military action due to an existential threat.  It was a misread situation that looked like a layup and became a meat grinder.  

As for the line, I don't see it as important short of losing actual American lives in combat.  The cost of war has mattered little to most outside of the far left and maybe Pat Buchanan in this country right up until isolationism came back into vogue.  I'd actually posit that the situation in Ukraine has the potential to become a tangible threat to the security of NATO and even eventually to the US itself.  If we're willing to dump trillions on nation-building in places where it's been demonstrably impossible throughout history, then I'd expect that we'd be willing to spend quite a bit on a proxy war that could smother the threat of Russian aggression towards the west in the crib

Now, would I be fine with a negotiation to end the conflict?  Well, yeah.  That's the only real desirable outcome.  I just don't see it as terribly likely.  Putin has to salvage his reputation.  I don't mean internationally.  I mean as the Russian head of state.  If he negotiates terms that the Russian people view as anything close to concession, they'll depose his ass as soon as the remaining Russian troops return to Moscow.  They've lost too many lives to tolerate him telling them that he lost.  He's cornered and has no choice but to gut this out regardless of whether Ukraine or the West want to negotiate a compromise.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-09-2024, 10:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're rather dodging the point.  I don't think you'll find many people Dem or GOP, who don't agree that Russia is an aggressor and that Putin is a dictator.  The question, which you won't answer, is how much is too much to pay?  Where is the line?  Is there a line?  Maybe for you there isn't one.  But someone actually having ne doesn'yt mean they're pro-Russian or a Putin-bot.  One of the biggest issues we run into on this board is the utter inability to understand a person's position while also disagreeing with it.   This thread is a literal mast class in that phenomena.  

You want to put a monetary value on doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is priceless imo. The right thing is not letting a mad man kill a bunch of Ukrainians and topple a European democracy.

I’m sure glad we weren’t playing by your rules and using an imaginary spending limit during WWII where if we hit the magic number we just cut bait.

I’m sure setting a spending limit would work really well. Like when we set a withdrawal timeline in Afghanistan.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2024, 05:35 PM)samhain Wrote: I'd like to agree but can't.  I think there are many in the conservative media such as Carlson and even Joe Rogan (who sadly has really swallowed this one hook, line, and sinker) who very openly paint Russia as a nation surrounded by NATO enemies with hostile intent.

Russia is surrounded by NATO nations.  I've stated for years, well over twenty, that keeping the alliance name as NATO, while simultaneously expanding membership towards Russia, was unnecessarily antagonistic.  You'll note, because some people need to actually be told this, that this doesn't excuse a single action taken by Russia towards their neighbors.  But it's not hard to see how Russia, and the Russian people, could perceive it the way you state.  NATO was created to counter the USSR.  When the USSR ceased to exist the Russian view is that the need for NATO ceased to exist.  Again this all could have likely been avoided with a simple rebranding.


 

Quote: Putin has always been a venerated figure on the far right, or at least since it became apparent that he openly despised Hillary and Obama.  He's not "woke" after all, and he's also kinda churchy and that's the only real requirement to appeal to much of that crowd.  To them, Russia was bullied into this situation and had no choice but to invade.  To me this line of argument (not saying it's your argument) is a pile of horseshit that you'd have to be stupid or just plain apatheic to speak into being.  Russia thought as many did that it would be a walk to take Ukraine.  They had no idea of how much resistance they'd encounter, and they most definitely did not expect the West to coalesce in support as they have.  It was never a "forced" military action due to an existential threat.  It was a misread situation that looked like a layup and became a meat grinder.  

There's not a single thing in here I disagree with.

Quote:As for the line, I don't see it as important short of losing actual American lives in combat.  The cost of war has mattered little to most outside of the far left and maybe Pat Buchanan in this country right up until isolationism came back into vogue.  I'd actually posit that the situation in Ukraine has the potential to become a tangible threat to the security of NATO and even eventually to the US itself.  If we're willing to dump trillions on nation-building in places where it's been demonstrably impossible throughout history, then I'd expect that we'd be willing to spend quite a bit on a proxy war that could smother the threat of Russian aggression towards the west in the crib

Finally, a well worded and argued statement on this topic.  I, again, have nothing to argue with here.  I would add the following question though, can you see why some people find the dollar amount unpalatable, even unacceptable?  Additionally, is being of that opinion an automatic indicator of support for Putin or the invasion of Ukraine?  To me the answer is an easy no to both.

Quote:Now, would I be fine with a negotiation to end the conflict?  Well, yeah.  That's the only real desirable outcome.  I just don't see it as terribly likely.  Putin has to salvage his reputation.  I don't mean internationally.  I mean as the Russian head of state.  If he negotiates terms that the Russian people view as anything close to concession, they'll depose his ass as soon as the remaining Russian troops return to Moscow.  They've lost too many lives to tolerate him telling them that he lost.  He's cornered and has no choice but to gut this out regardless of whether Ukraine or the West want to negotiate a compromise.  

I honestly believe that a guarantee that Ukraine will never be extended NATO membership will be enough, at least it Trump wins in November.  If Biden, or another Dem, does it will likely have to include territorial concessions, which I agree would be unacceptable.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2024, 05:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You want to put a monetary value on doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is priceless imo. The right thing is not letting a mad man kill a bunch of Ukrainians and topple a European democracy.

Certainly the right thing to do.  But that wasn't the question being asked.

Quote:I’m sure glad we weren’t playing by your rules and using an imaginary spending limit during WWII where if we hit the magic number we just cut bait.

My rules?  I asked a question, one you still haven't answered.  You're conflating exploring other perspectives as condoning Russia's conduct.  That is reductive in the extreme, and honestly rather immature.  Also, comparing the current conflict in Ukraine to WW2 is utterly silly.

Quote:I’m sure setting a spending limit would work really well. Like when we set a withdrawal timeline in Afghanistan.

You sure make some odd comparisons at times.  Are you arguing that we should still be in Afghanistan?  Or that we should have just bugged out on w whim on some random date, giving the local government no prior notice?

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-09-2024, 05:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Certainly the right thing to do.  But that wasn't the question being asked.



My rules?  I asked a question, one you still haven't answered.  You're conflating exploring other perspectives as condoning Russia's conduct.  That is reductive in the extreme, and honestly rather immature.  Also, comparing the current conflict in Ukraine to WW2 is utterly silly.


You sure make some odd comparisons at times.  Are you arguing that we should still be in Afghanistan?  Or that we should have just bugged out on w whim on some random date, giving the local government no prior notice?

Yes your rules. You are the one who brought it up, it’s what you keep talking about, and you keep knocking me for not giving you an answer. You support “the other perspective” of putting a monetary limit on doing the right thing. I don’t. Not real complicated.

You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel better about being willing to turn your back on the people of Ukraine if/when we hit some imaginary number. If me being a critic of that position makes me immature… so be it. I don’t think I ever claimed that was you condoning Russias conduct though. Maybe a guilty conscience?

No, what’s utterly silly is putting a monetary value on doing the right thing and then acting like it’s a respectable position to take. Well we could save those innocent people over there. But it sure is expensive. So F it just let them die. Yea… not my cup of tea

I’m saying giving the enemy crucial information, like a hard cut off when supplies and support would stop, is dumb.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2024, 07:31 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Yes your rules. You are the one who brought it up, it’s what you keep talking about, and you keep knocking me for not giving you an answer. You support “the other perspective”  of putting a monetary limit on doing the right thing. I don’t. Not real complicated.

Sometimes I really wonder about you.  I asked a question, you eventually gave a sort of answer.  Essentially you're in favor of Ukraine getting a blank check.  I then asked if you understand why there are some people who think differently.

Quote:You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel better about being willing to turn your back on the people of Ukraine if/when we hit some imaginary number. If me being a critic of that position makes me immature… so be it. I don’t think I ever claimed that was you condoning Russias conduct though. Maybe a guilty conscience?

Seriously, I am beginning to wonder if you can read English, because I never said that.  Or, prove me wrong and show me the post where I advocated "turning our back" on Ukraine.  I'll wait.

Quote:No, what’s utterly silly is putting a monetary value on doing the right thing and then acting like it’s a respectable position to take. Well we could save those innocent people over there. But it sure is expensive. So F it just let them die. Yea… not my cup of tea

Yeah, again, you're in favor of Ukraine getting a blank check.  Can you understand why some people would think otherwise?

Quote:I’m saying giving the enemy crucial information, like a hard cut off when supplies and support would stop, is dumb.

That level of logistical maneuvering isn't going to be able to be done in secret.  While I understand your general point I don't think it's all that feasible in a nation as compromised as Afghanistan was.  Plus, it's not like Biden couldn't have extended the deadline to an undisclosed date.