Damn..$100M...wow. one person and it took them that long to figure it out...and she didn't stop and run at $50M..wow
LOL at the idiocy. Our government has a duty to fund our military. The Constitution obligates them to this. There is no duty or Constitutional authority to fund a foreign nation's war. Surely, you understand the difference. I mean, perhaps you don't, which wouldn't be terribly surprising either.
and you’re still missing the point. I used to think you were just trolling but I’m starting to think you actually believe the nonsense you post. I kinda feel bad for people like you who are so certain they are right. Just remember it’s not what you don’t know that’ll hurt you. It’s what you think you know for sure is true that just ain’t so.
Yes, there is no "legal" requirement for the U.S. to help Ukraine. But there is a moral obligation, as well as a logical imperative at work here. The moral argument is basic: is theft, murder, torture and enslavement wrong? The logical argument is not quite as obvious, but it is easily understood by most people: 1) The easiest time to stop an aggressive, expanding empire is when it is just starting to expand. Europe lost millions of people in a war that could have been stopped in a few months with a tiny fraction of the deaths had England and France responded militarily to the German invasion of Poland and occupied the Ruhr River valley (where much of Germany's metal fabrication was), just a few dozen miles from the Dutch border. Make it to Essen, Germany, and destroy Alfred Krupp's six square miles of steel-making shops, and the war is essentially over. 2) The U.S. is the most successful country in the world financially. So we have the most to lose, and a need to protect what we have. Allowing Russia to profit from military conquests makes them richer, and the U.S. poorer. The U.S. has to defend itself (and its interests) from potential attacks from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and terrorist groups all over the world. When Russia becomes wealthier, they spend more money on an expanding military, as well as new and upgraded weapons. We have to keep up with them (and keep ahead of them) because only they know when and where they will strike. We HAVE TO engage in an arms race with them or prepare to surrender to them some day. You can't ignore the threat. Arms races are incredibly expensive. Our last arms race in the 1970's was partially responsible for the U.S. having something called "double-digit inflation". It was also very damaging for the U.S. economy. The situation is that much more serious now that there are two aggressive superpowers to defend against, not one. 3) Defeating the Russians (Soviets) in the 1980's allowed the U.S. to dial back military spending in the 1990's, in addition to making the world a safer place during that time frame. We saved $2.55 trillion during that time period. It also allowed the U.S. to focus on non-military advancements--perhaps you've heard of something called the internet? Investing even a few hundred billion dollars on Ukraine's defense is worth it to save $2.55 trillion and see what kind of non-military advancements will take place. 4) A military defeat of Russia could result in the collapse of the Russian economy, which would allow the west to help rebuild Russia, and do it in such a way that Russia is less able to continue its military weapons manufacture in the future. In other words, destroy the weapons factories, or no assistance. A country with a collapsed economy is very much motivated to cooperate to get the economy functioning again. A Russia without weapons production would improve the chances for world peace, and reduce military spending worldwide, especially if China gets the message. Clinton screwed up the first time around, but maybe we can get it right the second time around. 5) Assisting Ukraine to defeat Russia would give China pause on invading Taiwan and feeding its dreams of an expanding empire. If China pauses long enough, and its economic problems continue, they will have to choose between supporting their military and supporting the needs of its people. Eventually, the Chinese military would shrink and Xi would be forced out, and new leadership would take the country in a new direction. We might eventually be able to do business with China again. As humans, we have an obligation to support world peace (as well as responsible government spending), although there is no signed document anywhere that compels us to do so. Surely, you understand the difference. I mean, perhaps you don't, which wouldn't be terribly surprising either.
Basically, if you don't get off your ass once in a while and discourage war as a means to build an empire, you will never get peace.
Just a reminder that Ukrainians are dying in battle because republicans are blocking a military aid bill, because Trump thinks it might make Biden look good. https://archive.ph/eBTaF
FDR wanted the U.S. to be the Great Arsenal of Democracy. Current Republicans in Congress want America to be the Great Arsenal of Cowardice, Penny Pinching and Petty Squabbles.
new drones coming in from Iran. surprised these ahven't caused more damage than they have Ukrainian military intercepts kamikaze drone from Russia, revealing modernized warhead technology (msn.com) The first notable detail about this Shahed-136 is its color. Usually, such drones are gray. However, the captured drone was painted black, indicating a new variant, which has recently started appearing over Ukraine. The Ukrainians also examined the drone's interior. They managed to identify several changes compared to previously used drones. Defense Romania states that the main differences lie in the construction materials used, the navigation system, and a modernized warhead. The updated Shaheds also contain Russian receivers known as Kometa, which are created for smaller drones (like the Orlan-10) and are intended to be a solution for countering jamming by opponents.
Ukraine expands its foothold on the other side of the Dnipro River. They have not expanded it inland--they expanded it downstream. Ukraine has artillery on their side of the river, and is able to use it to hit targets on the occupied side of the river and support their soldiers across the river. Ukraine’s left bank foothold in Kherson Oblast expands down Dnipro River, say former Aidar Battalion company commander
What Turkey got to let Sweden in...still consider it a win for Biden and Sweden Türkiye earns new F-16 Viper deal after acceding Swedish Nato entry (msn.com) The US State Department has granted its approval to Türkiye’s $23bn foreign military sale (FMS) request to acquire 40 F-16 aircraft and the modernisation of its existing fleet to the Viper configuration. Authorisation of this agreement was initially witheld from the buyer. However, now that the Islamic republic reversed its efforts blocking Sweden from joining the Nato military alliance, the nation has earned its reward. ........................................ Türkiye will receive a host of various defence articles that will enhance its aerial performance in the decades to come. The request includes: 32 F-16C Block 70 aircraft; eight F-16D Block 70 aircraft; 48 F110-GE-129D engines (40 installed, eight spares); 149 Improved Programmable Display Generators (iPDG) (40 installed, ten spares, 99 for modernization programme); 149 AN/APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Scalable Agile Beam Radars (SABR) (40 installed, ten spares, 99 for modernisation programme); 168 Integrated Viper Electronic Warfare Suite (IVEWS) or equivalent Electronic Warfare (EW) systems (40 installed, ten spares, 118 for modernisation); Infrared Search and Track (IRST) pods, among much more equipment.
Ample suggestions that replacing Zaluzhny with Budanov signals that Ukraine is pretty much done, on the battlefield and Ukraine will increasingly undertake what we would call terrorist acts if they were carried out on us. We’ll see.
That is a phenomenal tweet and great question. I would wager it's about 50/50 among the warmongers in this thread. The only way we don't end up making a deal with Putin is if this goes to WW3. So, that is perhaps a large motivator.
It's a shame Neville Chamberlain did not have Twitter available to him in 1938. We could have gotten more of the same.
Ample suggestions from a propaganda peddler don't mean much. And yes, plenty of generals have been demoted or reassigned while their country was on their way to winning the war. It happened multiple times during WWII with both British and American generals when the Allies had started pushing German forces back towards Berlin. Once the Americans sent troops into battle and Germany had to fight a two-front war, the result was a foregone conclusion to most knowledgeable people. Eisenhower was viewed as a failure during the first part of the Italian offensive. His skills were better suited towards planning Operation Overlord. The British went through multiple generals during the Africa campaign; it didn't mean they were going to lose.
I feel like a couple of right wing posters in this thread have rolled even more right recently and become even more unhinged. I wonder what set them off.
