Ukraine….what’s our endgame here
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
Depends on what you mean by strict? I believe in the ideals and the intent of the constitution.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have the feds provided disaster relief as I believe in the benefits of broad federalism, but I also don’t think that those extra, inferred powers only referred to as “promoting the general welfare” should supersede enumerated responsibilities in terms of priority.
I’ve been skeptical of what has been published regarding the conflict for quite some time.
Those gosh durned yellow journalists! Can't quite see their motive to extend the war, but to then say that more than 50% of Ukranians want it to end in relation to the US not funding it any longer. That sentiment kind of goes against their desire to extend it. You would think that wouldn't be publicized. Unless you just want to push mistrust of journalists in general.
To be clear, I wasn’t referring to journalist intentionally publishing misleading information. I am skeptical of any information released by Russia or Ukraine.
I took the comment to refer specifically to this poll, and generally to whatever was suspect. Obviously Russian & Ukranian reports will be biased towards whatever suits their needs in a time of war, and not towards the truth. I assumed that Gallup has enough of their men on the ground, collecting and supervising the collection of this information, that they felt confident enough to publish it. That's why I was questioning whom the general statements accusation was leaving as suspect., seeing as how the poll didn't seem to have a bias to suspect. If the specific doesn't meet the accusation, it lends to questioning who is suspected in the general accusation.
I think he doesn’t know what a missile is and we should be convening concurrent Congressional and criminal investigations into who is making policy decisions such as these.
Last edited:
Hopefully we finally get a peace deal done. This current escalation is alarming. Every month which passes the negotiating position of Ukraine grows weaker. I would like to see Biden get a peace treaty worked out as the final act of his presidency. The last month has been a disaster.
But you wanted Obama/Biden to put troops on the ground in 2014/Now. You can't have your cake and eat it too, with your arguments. This is the risk that gave Biden nervous qualms, when we started out gradually giving military aid at the beginning. This is the reason we were so tempered, at the start, and now you are arguing against these levels of involvement and permission.
Just give em half the country, and move on. Great solution. Just puts it down the road a bit. Then they start it up again.
Show me where I supported American boots on the ground. What I said pre invasion was to provide Ukraine with the military assets to deter and/defend the invasion. That never included boots. I knew as should have everyone that once Russia seized that territory they were never surrendering the same. Just a massive foreign policy blunder. Now we have ICBMs involved. Great
I’ll ask the same question I’ve asked for over 2 years. What’s your plan for victory? Ukraine loses this war longterm.
What? You have been arguing for boots on the ground for a year or more. Saying that us putting boots on the ground was the only way to solve this situation, and nothing short of that would do any good. Your argument was get involved and give them the support they needed, which was boots on the ground or give them nothing. How hypocritical of you to deny that.
And your solution was boots on the ground. Can I grind this in anymore? Now you are saying there was never any solution and let them take what they want, essentially. That has been your argument from the start, I think. What a lark. Do more. Do more, do more, oh wait you did more? Oh no!!!
Show me where I said that. Ever. Go.
I have never advocated boots on the ground. I have said once we allowed Russia to take that territory that territory was forever gone w out boots on the ground.
Implying your argument was for boots on the ground. And what was your argument for Obama to have done differently, other than boots on the ground? He could have upped our involvement to what Biden did, increasing levels of support, or boots on the ground.
Last edited:
I’ve never argued boots on the ground. I did argue for supplying Ukraine with military assets in the lead up to the invasion. Assets sufficient to deter or significantly slow or stop said invasion. I believe my position was correct then and maintain the same line today. Again…once Russia seized that territory it was lost never to be returned without US combat forces on the ground.
Continuing this war makes zero sense imo. Hundreds of billions of dollars. Thousand upon thousands of additional lost lives. Further destruction of Ukraine. All in a war Ukraine not only can’t win but whose negotiating position continues to worsen as Ukraine is further depleted of troops.
We never had a strategy to win this war. Only one to prolong it. Look…I don’t like conceding that territory to Putin either. However , that ship sailed almost three years ago. Things are escalating. Time to end the bloodshed and loss of life. It is what it is at this point.
Last edited:
Aah reminds me of that Teddy Roosevelt adage… “ speak softly and bend over and drop your pants for your Soviet overlords”
If I were Biden, in response to ICBM’s I would move a nuclear bomber group into Estonia or Poland.
You’re not the only one with Nuclear capability Mr Putin…. And as soon as you launch yours… we launch ours.
You sure you want to provoke a war with a Commander-In-Chief who: 1) was recently declared incompetent to stand trial by a federal prosecutor, 2) lost not only a debate, but his party’s nomination for the highest office, due to obvious geriatric cognitive communication deficit, and 3) may or may not have a personal financial incentive to pursue hostilities in the region?
Just exactly who is ordering those bombers? Can Biden explain his reasoning on television, please?
Obama was too busy putting boots on the ground in Syria providing weapons and training for what would soon be a failed insurgency with much of the weapons falling into hostile hands and many trainees actually joining Al-Qaeda or ISIS instead.
He probably saw that as the more paramount issue at the time. It probably was, but this needed attention at the time, as well. I wouldn't doubt that he regrets that.
I imagine he is in possession of his faculties part of the time. He probably gave that order then. Part time President is not ideal, but it is what it is. I imagine this is the way it was with Reagan the last 6 months or so. Wasn't good then, not good now. But it will be over in a couple of months. I expect the defense chiefs in his cabinet make sure he picks an appropriate time, before they follow his orders.
So you would have advocated this order early in the conflict, but not now? We have given them the tanks and the missiles now. Also gave them a few planes on top of it. We weren't sure of their capabilities then. They hadn't had the problems with supply lines and Prigozhin, etc.
You have just articulated why we have ceded the advantage diplomatically and we are on the back heel in general.
My position hasn’t changed since day 1. I would have given Ukraine the necessary assets (not personnel) to repel the Russian invasion. Not a military guy but I assume that would include advance air defense batteries, artillery, armored personnel carriers, etc. Long range weapons would not have been on my list as I don’t consider them necessary to protect the Ukrainian border from invasion. My hope at the time is that such arms would have deterred the invasion. At worst those assets would have made the invasion very difficult. Could the Ukrainians have succeeded in repelling the invasion with those assets in place….no idea. I do believe it’s almost certain the Russians would control less territory if Ukraine had those assets .
The current escalation bothers me do in part to it’s timing. We have a leader with greatly diminished cognitive abilities who has less than 60 days left in office. Those are a dangerous combination imo. Additionally, he has not had any type of press conference where he’s outlined the reason for the escalation or the goal of the same. The US striking targets deep in Russia will have no effect in retaking that lost territory btw.
Last edited:
Well I'm sure you don't want Sanders giving the orders for the next two months.
The way I understood it, HiMars are air defense batteries. And to be an effective defense you also want to have long & short range for them to be fully effective. Himars is both offensive and defensive.
I’m not sure HiMars are air defense batteries.
HIMARS
The HIMARS rocket launcher is a flexible, affordable, and highly effective mobile artillery system designed to meet the demands of the modern battlefield.
The Main Board threads on this topic are extraordinarily well informed and sourced. Particularly the intelligence gathering and military hardware/logistics topics. People doing it, not did it 20 years ago or just Googling guesses.
They can be used as a mobile air defense battery. That's not their only use, but other countries use them as air defense. The Philippines use them as an air defense battery, as well as an anti ship missile, and will use them offensively. There is other setups that are more expensive, less mobile, and better suited to air defense, but that is one of their uses as far as I understand it.I’m not sure HiMars are air defense batteries.
HIMARS
The HIMARS rocket launcher is a flexible, affordable, and highly effective mobile artillery system designed to meet the demands of the modern battlefield.www.lockheedmartin.com
We thrive on misinformation, guesses, and general unfounded accusations on this board
Last edited:
Similar threads
