My friend, you are just plain wrong with this statement. Having friends who live in El Paso and another acquaintance who worked at several border installations over the past two years, including Texas and California, their assessment is way different than yours. Child trafficking, human trafficking, drugs galore, bad people from all over the world make their way to our southern border to come into our country. It’s a huge problem that needs to be fixed.
You are demonstrating clearly that you don’t understand the definition of a preemptive strike. I don’t say that to be snarky. This is a serious military and political matter in Ukraine. Now there might be a great gulf between what you or I or lots of other people think we should do, but we probably agree the war is a serious matter. When you use terms that mean one thing (when you actually mean something else) how persuasive do you think you are? I’m not an engineer, for instance, and that’s alright. I made different choices in life. If this were a topic about an engineering project, I might have valid opinions about what would work or wouldn’t and how cost-effective it would be, even over that of engineers on here. But I doubt I would be very credible in any of my points if I kept insisting, “Yes, you idiots can divide by zero. I’ve done it. I do it regularly.” They would think if my fundamental understanding of the subject was so poor, then it would be no good trying to discuss more complex matters with me, such as the load-bearing properties of composite materials. The term preemptive strike plays no role in the Ukraine War. Not by Ukraine. Not by Russia. Not by any other country supporting either side. If someone wants to disagree with me, then please start with the definition of a preemptive strike. My guess is, they will go “Oh. I thought it meant it something else.”
Wouldn’t the missile attacks that began the Iraqi war be a preemptive strike? What was it called again? Shock and awe or something like that?
Preventative, not preemptive. Lots of examples of preventative war in history, including Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Very few actual examples of preemptive war. Maybe the Six Day War, depending on whose story you believe. Russia might argue they were executing a preventive war against NATO via Ukraine, but that’s still BS. The purpose was conquest, even if they have had to scale back their objectives because their reach exceeded their grasp.
LMAO at yall's pompous asshattery, while pretending to try to persuade anyone of anything. Y'all are such incredible douchebags, that you almost make Russia sympathetic. It's really a hell of an accomplishment, I'll grant you that, but damn.... Get the hell over yourselves.
I’m a Gator fan through and through. But there are lots of programs that are better today. On balance, Russia > US, if only because Russia doesn’t have 900+ military installations in 80 countries to “protect its interests.”
Not sure why you're acting all offended and bent out of shape, as if your life is going to somehow be affected if Russia gets to hang onto a small slice of Ukraine. Seems you're more interested in Russian men being killed than making life better here in the U.S.
The textbook definition of a preemptive war is one that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war shortly before that attack materializes. I suppose we could split hairs about what is "imminent", but in the end, that is exactly what his post was advocating for. He wants us to hit Russia today, before they decide to hit us (whenever that is supposedly going to occur). By stating the intention is to stop Russia now, before they invade other nations of Eastern Europe, you'd be advocating for preemptive war, because Russia have not attacked those nations. And this would apply even in our case, as a strike on a NATO country is essentially a strike on us. The problem is, much like 2003, there is no real evidence that Russia have any plans to invade the Baltics or Poland. And yes, Saddam did a lot of boasting, chicanery and had a brutal reputation, but the allegations made against him to justify the war were pure lies. Perhaps even you were told these things, but ultimately, in a court of law, if evidence doesn't exist, it didn't happen and there is no evidence Russia plans to strike other Eastern European countries, just the same as there was no evidence Saddam had WMDs.
Pathetic. The U.S. is often INVITED into other countries because in addition to protecting our own interests, we also protect the host country. Generally speaking, we bring peace and a chance for prosperity. I don't think any host country has been invaded, for example, since the 1940's. If the host country doesn't want us there, they can ask us to leave, and we do. The Philippines did this (and now they regret having done so as they have been having problems with China). Few others have done so. Russia, on the other hand, "protects its interests" by pointing missiles and doing threatening military exercises near the border of other countries. They are barbarians, so they do what they know best. And, no, that does not make Russia better than the U.S.
Because he knows that he has lost the argument, and he thinks he is saving face by making an a$$ of himself in his attempt to belittle others.
We get upset because we understand the past, and that informs us to make an educated guess about the future. We know that: 1) the world would be a better place (and a less dangerous one) if Russia was defeated in this conflict. 2) American finances would be much better if we were not in an arms race with Russia and China (to the tune of at least $2.5 trillion). One pandemic pushed interest rates up to 8.6% a couple years ago--what will an arms race with two superpowers do to inflation? 3) there may never be an easier time or place to defeat Russia. 4) denying Russia the $12 trillion in mineral wealth of Ukraine means that Russia's economy will not receive a massive boost from the theft, which they will use to upgrade their military weapons systems (causing us to increase our defense spending--see arms race comment). 5) denying Russia control over Ukraine's farmland means that Russia cannot weaponize the food exports from Ukraine, causing millions of people to starve in Africa and the middle east. Lack of food and water are two of the biggest causes of political upheaval and violence worldwide. 6) causing Russia to lose may collapse its economy, leading the west to reconstitute it. We could do so conditionally under the requirement that Russia destroy its weapons factories, making the world an even safer place. You, on the other hand, seem to have a very limited understanding of the past, and a severe inability to predict the future. All you seem to understand is the geographic distance between the conflict and the U.S., and you assume a conflict over there has no effect on what happens here. You don't seem to understand the global economy and free trade, or how we benefit from these things. You don't seem to understand how starving people on one side of the world can cause destruction on the other (see: bin Laden, Osama). You don't seem to understand how the U.S. military has to spend tons of money to deal with potential threats to try to be ready for anything that might happen.
Russia's FSB (the "new" KGB) prevented several VIP's from boarding the IL-76 aircraft that was later shot down. FSB also prevented Russian emergency services from approaching the crash site. Only five bodies were delivered to the morgue. FSB prevents Russian VIPs from boarding doomed Il-76 flight & other holes in Russia’s narrative
Ask Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria … now Ukraine if they felt protected. FYI: “PATHETIC” as your principal argument is way past its sell-by date.
I must seem like some sort of intelligence-bot to you, with all this knowledge of the past and the future, and my independent thoughts that are not fed to me from a television network program (i.e., Fox News).
