Sounds like the strikes were intended to send a message “your air defenses suck and we can strike you anytime anywhere including your nuclear programs”. Hopefully things calm down from here on out.
Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏
- Thread starter TulsaFanFromStigler
- Start date
He knew but in 2024 Iran isn’t going to listen or even fear the U.S. Not much he could have done besides drawing a line in the sand. A line which likely would have resulted in a major middle eastern war.
We did shoot down missiles you dunderhead.
So nearly 20% of Democratic representatives don't want any support for Israel because of their sympathy toward Palestinians, and around 25% of our Republican representatives don't want any support for Ukraine because of their support for Putin. 😜
I wish the majority of Representatives would get some balls on them with this vote, and vote the way they want to vote every time. Now we'll see how it does in the senate. The immigration reform is rumored to possibly come before the house, despite Trump's disapproval.
I wish the majority of Representatives would get some balls on them with this vote, and vote the way they want to vote every time. Now we'll see how it does in the senate. The immigration reform is rumored to possibly come before the house, despite Trump's disapproval.
Would you object to Representatives demanding revenue sources be passed in conjunction with spending bills which weren’t including in the budget ?
I thought that was partially provided. Thought part of the funds to Ukraine were in the form of loans. Not an immediate revenue source but one none the less.
Ukraine will never be able to repay those loans. In fact, they are going to need hundreds of billions more just to rebuild their country. Those will be gifts regardless of their official title.
Yeah, I know. Just thought I'd try to slip that by you. I giggled as I typed it.
Might be able to do more if Putin’s American Republican stooges weren’t promoting Russia’s theft of various economic regions, ports, etc…
Once we green lighted Putin to invade Ukraine by failing to provide advance weapon systems prior to the invasion the ending of this conflict was largely written. Same foreign policy we employed with Crimea. Ukraine lacks the manpower to win a war of attrition and certainly lacks the numbers to take back defending Russian positions inside Ukraine.
Our strategy continues to be the hope of a stalemate where both sides kill each other. Little ground is taken and hundreds to billions of dollars of taxpayer money is burned up in a war without a strategy to victory. Not even sure what victory is at this point. Assume there will eventually be a peace treaty where Russia gets to keep some of the taken territory and Russia pinky promises to pay a set amount to help with the rebuilding of Ukraine. How much does a country running $2T in yearly deficits with debt service costs approaching $1T a year pay? How long to we continue to approve non budgeted expenditures without a corresponding revenue source? Until it all collapses I assume.
Right now we’re not moving towards stalemate, we’re moving toward Putin taking Kiev. You would have been complaining about astronomical budgets expenditures during the battle of the bulge and saying we should have sued for peace with Hitler.
We had a plan to beat Hitler. Not so much here. We weren’t paying more in debt interest than our entire military budget. Again….this isn’t sustainable.
Ironic the most vocal opponents of arming Ukraine to thwart a Russian invasion are now the most vocal proponents of arming Ukraine in hopes of achieving an endless stalemate. Again….Ukraine lacks the manpower to take back the lost territory. I will ask the same question I’ve asked to over two years….what is our plan for victory or even ending this war?
There is none. That I’ve seen. At this point it’s the military industrial complex gearing up to make itself all the $$$ with little regard to how it negatively impacts the US or any other country.
Of course they won't see jail. They made it difficult to study.
The Jan 6 protesters caused death and injury, attempted to overthrow the results of our presidential election, and threatened our congress and vice president.(not to mention damage of property) Hardly equal damage.
It is an interesting dichotomy. J6 protestors are great patriots. These people are very bad. I will never understand them.
I think they are hoping for Putin and the political regime to collapse. It isn't going to happen.
The only realistic way to end this
is for NATO to start bombing Russian positions in Ukraine. It is how we ended the Kosovo war in 1999. This would be on a scale we have never seen since WW2. Yeah, we are going to lose planes and pilots. They have serious air defences. Your little A10s that every cowboy gets their dick hard on Youtube about are worthless. Everyone wants this big badass military but never wants to use it for anything. Since Vietnam, Ukraine has been the biggest testing ground for weaponry against a real power!
This conflict has proven a lot of good things for us: the power of drone tech. Tanks aren't dead. Cesar's artillery is really badass. We need to be able to produce lots more 122MM shells on a grand scale. That is why we are expanding our capacity to three times what it is now.
A huge percentage of this bill is getting spent right here in the US of A building stuff. People need to stop crying. They just don't like it because the big orange man doesn't get to act like a badass killing Russians.
There’s a lot of people out there that think Ukraine is just an exercise for both sides to modernize and refine their weapons arsenals and build up inventory. Hitler did the same in Spain.I think they are hoping for Putin and the political regime to collapse. It isn't going to happen.
The only realistic way to end this
Everyone wants this big badass military but never wants to use it for anything. Since Vietnam, Ukraine has been the biggest testing ground for weaponry against a real power!
This conflict has proven a lot of good things for us: the power of drone tech. Tanks aren't dead. Cesar's artillery is really badass. We need to be able to produce lots more 122MM shells on a grand scale. That is why we are expanding our capacity to three times what it is now.
A huge percentage of this bill is getting spent right here in the US of A building stuff. People need to stop crying. They just don't like it because the big orange man doesn't get to act like a badass killing Russians.
I’ve been consistent from the start of the buildup to the invasions. You either provide sufficient support to keep Putin out of Ukraine or you find a peaceful solution. What you don’t do is provide just enough support to keep the killing and destruction going. Basically a never ending war which leaves Ukraine destroyed and hundreds of thousands dead and multiple countries in debt. Which is exactly what we’ve done and what we plan to do going forward as far as I can tell. Just burning money and throwing away lives. Remember, the longer this war goes the more it’s going to cost someone to rebuild Ukraine. With debt service costs now of a $1T a year we really don’t have that luxury .I think they are hoping for Putin and the political regime to collapse. It isn't going to happen.
The only realistic way to end this
Everyone wants this big badass military but never wants to use it for anything. Since Vietnam, Ukraine has been the biggest testing ground for weaponry against a real power!
This conflict has proven a lot of good things for us: the power of drone tech. Tanks aren't dead. Cesar's artillery is really badass. We need to be able to produce lots more 122MM shells on a grand scale. That is why we are expanding our capacity to three times what it is now.
A huge percentage of this bill is getting spent right here in the US of A building stuff. People need to stop crying. They just don't like it because the big orange man doesn't get to act like a badass killing Russians.
Huffy, the thought has crossed my mind as well. Both sides are benefiting from real world experience with weapon systems and tactics. The military industrial complex is the only winner here. N
College campuses have been anything but champions of free speech over the last 20 years. Label speech as “hateful” or “inciteful” (basically speech with which the college leaderships disagrees) and ban the same. It’s been a disgrace how they’ve allowed intimidation and at time violence against Jewish students at some of the universities. Actions which would never be tolerated against any other minority group.
Yeah, it needs to be the same for both sides. How have they allowed violence? I would expect when violence happens they get the police involved.
These are private campuses that are being protested on. I personally think that those that are in the main protest areas should have to show their student ID on request. They should kick the non students off of the campus that are only there to protest. They are allowing a protest on private grounds. It becomes much easier to police when it is on public grounds, not in an area where students are going to class. The students can then decide if they want to go to the public protest, or stay on campus grounds for the student protest.
Universities have been barring speech from their campuses for years. Well speech with which they disagree. That said, they have every right to limit the protest areas to spots on campus which guarantees the targets of those protests (Jewish students) aren’t affected. Universities for years have championed “safe spaces” for students. Especially minority students. I’m not sure anyone would disagree they are failing in that regard here. As I said prior, if these protests and calls for voilence were directed at any other minority group I believe you would see a much different response. I do agree that many of the protestors aren’t students btw. However, the universities haven’t shown much of a desire to kick those individuals off campuses.
Plenty of articles of Jewish students being trapped in buildings, prevented from going to class, having items thrown at them and even attacked.
They don't call the police and send security when this happens? Those that are perpetrating the harassment should at la minimum be kicked off campus. That is not protecting their students and is grounds for a lawsuit against the University if they don't handle it in this manner. I'd think a case like that would be a slam dunk win in court.
Appears lawsuits have been filed
Jewish students sue MIT for alleged complicity in antisemitism on campus
The StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice (SCLJ) and two Jewish students filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), alleging that the university has vi...
That phrase may be the most misunderstood in the modern political lexicon.
Eisenhower wasn’t saying we shouldn’t have a military industrial complex, or that government shouldn’t control it. He was concerned about the lack of public control over that capacity. Specifically, he was concerned about the media and other unelected forces defining competitors as enemies and disagreement as endless conflicts where unlimited sums would be spent and modern political discourse and institutions would be unable to restrain it. He was concerned about moral hazards. Not just the moral hazard of letting people borrow money from the government and then vote themselves loan forgiveness but also continuing to vote for wars so Des Moines didn’t lose jobs. Or as Chito and Aston put it, we can’t cut the federal budget because that will put people out of work, we need the government to grow to stimulate the economy.
He spoke at length about balance between the public and private economy. Between public good and the politically desirable and how those things can subtly differ. And how to have institutional control over the decision making process surrounding that balance.
He identified two main threats to that balance at the time he left office. The standing army/military industrial complex that had tremendous political and financial influence at the grassroots at the time was arguably manipulating public policy to become self perpetrating. He wasn’t worried about Halliburton as much as he was local and state governments pandering to them because the public lacked the awareness or political power to restrain both.
More importantly (and more presently), he also warned of the federal “task force of scientists.” And the revolution on college campuses where the thirst for government research contracts, and the desire to maintain them, had become a “substitute for intellectual curiosity.” He was concerned that the federal government would “dominate” the universities through the threat of withheld funding. He was absolutely terrified that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific and technological elite.” IOW Fauci and his bureaucratic apparatus.
People can’t throw around their concerns about Dick Cheney without conceding something dangerous and disastrous happened with CoVid policy.
Last edited:
It’s not that simple. During the red scare and Vietnam protests, the faculties at most of these schools and their unemployable hippie administrations voted themselves, and the campus, free speech and open public forum rights that are more broad than constitutional protections. Universities risk being sued for violating their own employment contracts by stopping the protests. It’s why you always see a designated faculty member in the protest crowd and it’s why schools let the disorder go until the violence rises to a defendable level. Both sides know the rules and it’s a well rehearsed dance, the public watching doesn’t.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. I appreciate the history lesson. I agree it is frequently misused, including how I used it based on the original intent.
My point was there a groups incentivized to see us in conflicts and war. I didn’t mean it as a political statement or in relation to the government specifically.
Except many of these same institutions have had minimal issues silencing conservative speech on their campuses in recent years.
And then the media uses it to further divide the public? I suspect the underlying goal is revenue and they know sensationalism gets more views than trying to be objective.
I only mention that because your post reminded me of what I've seen in the last 12 hours from both sides on the Columbia protests. The left claims the far right is "doxxing" pro Palestinian protestors and that they're not antisemitic. Then the right claiming there's blockades by the pro Palestinian side preventing students from going to class.
I suspect the truth lies in between these two "truths"?
In the above, I’m genuinely curious. I’ve found the protests at Columbia fascinating because it isn’t a left vs right protest although the media portrays it that way. There are people across the political spectrum who support Israel.
And vice versa. The worst of the political left and right shake hands over jew hatred.
Jewish organizations are presently suing those schools for not protecting jewish students welfare. Do you think they will attack those regulations as being unprotective of them as students, and thus wrongful to students rights? Thus trying to change those contract rights & regulations?
I don’t see the regulations per se as the problem. The issue is they’re are selectively enforced based on the subject matter of the speech/protests. There are multiple minority groups on campuses where these type of protests / threats would never be allowed.
I agree on them being selectively enforced. But regulations that let violence of any sort go on until a net threshold is reached are wrong no matter whether they are being selectively enforced or not.
