I have not forgotten 9/11 nor have I have forgotten the US declared a war on terror and terrorist (al-Queda and it's leader) where ever they may be. This alone deviates from the concept of war on a national scale. Yet that is the excuse used to send in troops to Afghanistan. Once Osama Bin Laden had been disposed of the US should have left Afghanistan. Yet that is not what we did. Now we no longer have to declare war on a nation all we need do is state we are removing terrorists and the long arm of the US will reach out and snatch you with impunity. There is no safe haven and the globe will comply.
That is your belief not mine or many others. If you want to consider me a vocal advocate for remaining neutral in this war I have explained where that line is that requires action on our part. If this upsets you so be it. That of course does not mean the the EU and NATO nations within Europe cannot or should not do what they deem as necessary to bring this war to close.
St. Petersburg Russia airspace closed. #BREAKING: St Petersburg closes airspace, turns commercial jets away (msn.com) Russia’s northern capital of St Petersburg has closed its airspace, grounded all planes that haven’t taken off and is turning away inbound flights, according to reports in the morning of February 28. The authorities have given no information as to the reason for the emergency measures. bne IntelliNews staff report that fighter jets have been scrambled and are flying over the city, according to telephone calls to residents in the city. The Telegram channel Baza also reports there are jet fighters in the air over the city. The cities main airport Pulkovo has been shut and air traffic control and initiated the “carpet” plan that is a protocol used when there is an unknown object in the air that can jeopardise the safety of commercial flights. Flighttracker online service also shows the skies over St Petersburg as empty of planes. The carpet plan is used when there is an illegal border cross or unidentified aircraft in the controlled airspace.
Are we not a part of NATO, the biggest player in NATO? So We get to decide or have input into ending this war? In fact are we not obligated as part of the treaty? Through material assistance? Check check check check. You didn’t understand the meaning of/composition of NORAD, are you sure you understand what NATO is?
You might be right. I’m not sure yet. Without knowing more about Ukraine’s strategy, I remain confused as to why they were fighting so hard there. If it was because they were inflicting a disproportionate number of casualties (and both sides are claiming that, so who knows?), then that makes sense. If it was to tie down Russia there in order to set up something else somewhere else, then that makes sense, too. However, if it was just a matter of “Russia really wants it, so we have to stop them there,” then that makes a lot less sense. One doesn’t have to be a military genius to count rifles. Russia has more and will always have more. A strict war of attrition is going to favor Russia tactically and operationally (perhaps not strategically). Ukraine, therefore, has to adopt a flexible defense as they did in the early days of this war: don’t fall in love with terrain, trade it for time and disproportionate enemy casualties, hit back when the enemy gets stretched too thin, be prepared to give up the ground you just gained. Much as they might want to, Ukraine cannot win the war by capturing ground. But Russia can, unfortunately. Make them trade unacceptable casualties for that ground. Apart from hopes and prayers of foreign intervention, it’s the only possible way of Ukraine winning the war strategically.
Looks like the Zelensky Line is broken ... Zelensky Hints At Withdrawing From Russian-Encircled Bakhmut: 'Out Of Options' | ZeroHedge
So we are helping in accordance with NATOs wishes. We are an active part of NATO. I can’t see why you would think we should sit on the sidelines when evil is marching to the edges of NATO.
The U.S. did not put troops in Afghanistan (other than maybe a few advisors) after Russia left. Certainly not enough troops to prevent their pro-western leader (Mahmoud) from being assassinated. The U.S. spent essentially nothing on Afghanistan after Russia left. We showed absolutely no gratitude whatsoever after the Afghans lived and fought like caged animals against our biggest enemy at the time and defeated them at great cost to themselves. Easily the biggest mistake George Bush, Sr. made as president. Afghanistan was mostly destroyed with no means of rebuilding. Things got desperate, Afghans decided to turn to religion to deal with the hardship, and that's when the Taliban (Islamic fundamentalists) took over. Eventually Al Qaeda moved in and created a training camp, which led to 9-11, which led to U.S. troops (many) going into Afghanistan. Bin Laden would never have had a base in Afghanistan if the U.S. had spent even 10% of what it later spent on security (to prevent another 9-11) to rebuild Afghanistan after Russia left. We had a pro-western leader running the country. We had a lot of positive feelings from the Afghan people after helping them defeat the Soviets. We just didn't follow through with even a tiny Marshall Plan for their recovery. We were ungrateful, ignorant, and cheap (much like you advocate for the U.S. to be). And we paid the price for it. By the time we started any building projects in Afghanistan, the Taliban was totally in control. The weapons that the U.S. provided to Afghanistan in the 1980's did not produce Bin Laden the uber-terrorist; the abandonment that the U.S. provided in the 1990's did. Maybe you should crack open a history book, or read up on things in wikipedia. You are leaving about a dozen years out of your historical account, not to mention a little event called 9-11.
Sure we are a part of NATO and that part of NATO has an agreement with specific nations that belong to the group. When one nation is attacked the others will come to their defense. This scenario has not happened. Russia nor anyone else has attacked a member of NATO. Perhaps it is you that does not understand the NATO agreement. That said each nation has the where with all to act unilaterally in their political endeavors. There is nothing in the agreement that states if one member of NATO were to supply any non NATO nation with arms that all NATO nations are obligated to do the same. As for NORAD I posted the composition of NORAD and who is responsible for what. Perhaps you missed that post or chose to ignore it.
I totally agree the Afghani's got the brunt end of the stick from all sides of the equation. Yet the US wouldn't stop meddling in the Middle East for decades well before Afghanistan. We gave rise to the terrorist cult and armed them no less all for the need of oil.
I see you disagree with my reply to you. Perhaps what you mean to articulate that we shouldn’t be part of NATO any more, it’s hard to tell. If so that’s a perfectly valid opinion but not one that serious people would entertain. You may have since gained an understanding of NORAD but you certainly didn’t at the time of your post.
I never stated we shouldn't be part of NATO. What I have stated is if we are part of NATO we should honor our commitment as per the agreement. Not that NORAD has anything to do with this discussion it's obvious that you didn't understand the composition of NORAD and who was responsible for what otherwise you would have made it clear in your responses which you failed to do. My response gave more information on this board about NORAD than either of our poorly written points of contention.
We’ve all heard the the phrase “winning cures all.” So if we win in Ukraine, great. No complaints here other than the fact we were not obligated to fund their war. But if we lose……that’s my issue. Many here are trying so hard to tell us all the reasons Russia will lose, while being oblivious to the actual happenings and logistics on the ground. Without direct NATO troop involvement, the odds still very heavily favor Russia and Putin showing no signs of wavering.
Once Ukraine gets the right tools (i.e., tanks), they may yet teach Russia a lesson. I wish the U.S. and Germany would be less stingy with the tanks. We bought them to fight Russia, and now that there is a fight that Russia needs to lose, we aren't getting any use out of most of them. We have over 2500 in active use, and another 3700 in storage. I don't see why we couldn't send 500 or even 1,000 Abrams tanks. What are we saving them for? I don't consider the U.S. to be winning or losing in Ukraine. This is Ukraine's fight to win or lose. We are just backing one side in the conflict. If Ukraine loses, our support of Ukraine still did a lot of damage to the Russian military, and might dissuade them from attacking again anytime soon. Both of those things are positive outcomes for world peace in general, as well as for the U.S., since we spend a lot of money maintaining the peace worldwide.
U.S. General Ben Hodges has come up with a battle plan that could lead to the "total implosion of Russia's military". A total Russian collapse is surprisingly close
Ukraine hits Russian towns with a series of massive drone attacks, shutting down St. Pete's air traffic, and hitting an oil depot and a supermarket. Drones Attack Russia From All Sides
Russia only has one tank factory that churns out 20 tanks a month, but it is apparently losing 150 tanks a month. Russia has just one tank factory churning out 20 tanks a month, with demand outstripping production by a factor of ten, says report
