So, basically, you have no understanding of the numbers involved, even after they've been presented to you several times. You have no concept of balancing a budget and what that takes long-term. You do not understand cause and effect. You see big spending, like over $100 billion, and you crap your pants in fear. Guess what, big boy? We spend $700-800 billion on national defense every year. A $100 billion outlay to Ukraine over two years is NOTHING, considering that Russia is one of our two biggest threats. And many of the weapons that we sent to Ukraine were rusting in warehouses, with near-zero chance of them being used by the U.S. in combat ever again. Ukraine is practically doing us a favor, taking these tanks and Bradleys off our hands. So that leaves ammunition, which is what Ukraine really needs right now. (We are not sending cash to Ukraine.) This war has taught us that we are not ready for an extended fight with Russia or China, because we would run out of ammo within a year or two. (We're getting that fixed.) This is the cheapest way to get to world peace (and the economic benefits that come with that). Ammo is one of the smaller expenses of war. We are not having to mobilize troops (a huge expense), large numbers of ships, tanks, trucks and other equipment. We are not having to set up military hospital operations. We don't have to spend money on the logistics of getting supplies where they are needed. All we are trying to do is send in ammo, along with the occasional piece of military hardware. We are only spending maybe 3-5% of the cost of operating a war in a foreign country (maybe taipan can give a more accurate estimate). We aren't spending trillions of dollars like we did by invading Iraq. Long story short, there is no way that spending even $50 billion a year on Ukraine is going to make a dent in the U.S. economy or a significant change in the U.S. national debt. Failure to see Ukraine through to victory with military aid will have a huge impact on our national debt over the next decade, as we spend trillions of dollars on new weapons systems and stockpiles of ammo. If you can't understand the difference between spending billions of dollars versus spending trillions of dollars, then we can't help you. (You're hopeless.)
Ukraine requesting more Patriots which have been very successful for them. But at $1B per system and very roughly $4M per missile it would seem that money could be used more efficiently. “But one thing that is clear, the experts said, is that the Patriot has clearly been working extremely well in Ukraine. Their performance, according to Frederik Mertens, an analyst at the Hague Center for Strategic Studies, has been "an unmitigated success." They have used it to shoot down some of Russia's more deadly — but also somewhat overhyped — aerial threats. (Training) Another Ukrainian was an electrical engineer before he joined the military during the war, but when it came time to learn how to use the Patriot's engagement control station, the student was "way above" what he was being taught, McConkey said.” Patriot performance in Ukraine dispels doubts over abilities: experts US Army instructors say Ukrainians were 'amazing' at mastering Patriot
You mean like the MLRS, Bradleys, Abrams, Patriots, and every other system they’ve sworn to take out?
the airfields are a little harder to hide. hopefully they have been building some hardened facilities to host the planes and developing some rapid repair teams for the runways. seems like 16's don't like dirty runways from what I can tell. still not sure why they chose that airframe instead of something a little less delicate. the patriots have been more than impressive, what great field testing. Need to invest in Raytheon as their orders have to be through the roof. they cand efend themselves, something the 16's can't do unless they keep an umbrella up. are ata missiles as accurate as patriots at dispatching incoming missiles?
We probably lost a bit of our ability to deter with our 20 year intervention in Afghanistan (zero to show for it) and our great success in Iraq the 2nd go around (zero to show for it). And so, one could reason that a failed effort in Ukraine (again with likely nothing to show for it) would more likely embolden than it would deter. And so now you're going to say "all the more reason to go balls deep in Ukraine." But we went balls deep in Afghanistan and we went balls deep in Iraq. And I shouldn't say we have nothing to show for it. Just nothing good. I don't consider young Americans being carried away in caskets as something for show, nor do I think it deters the Chinese. But sure.. this time it's different. We couldn't hold down a primitive force of bandits in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if we send enough Ukes into the meat grinder, we're bound to hit gold. And what could really go wrong, besides a couple of tactical nukes that we won't respond to out of fear of MAD?
World domination is an integral component of Leinnist communism. Putin just wants a Russian sphere of influence. But then, the caliphate also wants to dominate the world. We react according to the actual threat level posed, not childish whimsical musings of quixotic dictators' wet day dreams. Russia is an antiquated shell of the Soviet war machine, stuck in the Ukranian mud, well east of NATO. They pose zero threat to the US, other than MAD. Which to my knowledge, has not been *repealed.* Or as Sting famously put it: "...Mr. [Biden] says he will protect....I don't subscribe to his point of view...we share the same biology, regardless of ideology, what will save us me and you, is if the Russians love their children too...".
We're still spending ourselves to swift ruin, literally adding a Trillion dollars of debt to our national debt every 100 days, already paying 1 Trillion per year just to service that debt... And the battle cry remains: SPEND MORE!!! JUST A LITTLE MORE!!!! "...with a rebel yell, they cried more more, more..." Fact is, we're already in that dreaded death spiral, though we pretend to deny it. But let us not fear the Reaper... Much more fun to fear the Russian.
There is a huge difference between the Iraq folly, and Ukraine. Afghan and Iraq were invasions. The U.S. was the aggressor (I felt justifiably in Afghan, laughably not so in Iraq). The U.S. also made the mistake of getting involved in “nation building” in areas that are essentially not governable due to religious tribalism. None of that at play here. In fact, this is exactly what many of us predicted as a result of W’s incursion into Iraq. That it would reduce the U.S. credibility and standing in the world… and… here we are. I bet you were all gung-ho about Iraq given your political leanings, now that you think you’ve “learned” you take the other extreme position of isolationisn as quite a few “conservatives” have. I don’t think people grasped the ISIS caliphate or how disastrous the dominos would be, but in general terms Iraq was based on a lie - it was obviously not helpful to the original mission of getting Al-Queda. The gift that kept giving to America’s enemies. We aren’t “sending” Ukes. They are there defending their own homeland. The historical analog would maybe be Vietnam or Korea fighting back the communists, but not really as the U.S. actually put troops into battle in those conflicts.
LMAO! "See! I dun tol' y'all so!!! We lost credibility due to Iraq!!!" ---da Left ...not Doh! Biden's epic face plant catastrophic, disastrous, humiliating tail-between-the-legs, leave-a-hand-full (*cough* few thousand *cough*) expendable Americans behind, cowardly departure from Afghanistan just a year before Russia invaded Ukraine...nah, it was Iraq, several years prior.... LMAO! Y'all are some kinda' special!
Just a reminder it wasn't Biden who negotiated a May 31, 2021 date for the total withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan; it wasn't Biden who forced the then government of Afghanistan to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners including some designated as terrorists before Biden even took office; although he later compounded the error it wasn't Biden who initially reduced US troop levels before the number recommended by his generals; and it wasn't Biden who denied the then government of Afghanistan a seat at the table when he was negotiating the US withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Taliban. In short, you've conveniently forgotten that the debacle of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan under Biden was set up by the incompetence of his predecessor and no matter what he says now the result would have been the same had the defeated indicted former president actually won the election and remained in office.
Biden was POTUS; he should have made his own assessments and executed his own withdrawal as he saw fit. Trump's plan was intended to be finalized with Trump as POTUS, with Trump to answer for its results upon execution. Its hypothetical results remain ever locked in hypothetical la la land. Doh! Biden won the election, he owns his shitty results--which he, and you, and the entirety of the Doh! Biden fanboi Nation, ever seek to disown, distance, excuse yourselves and him from, and pretend to apply some bullshit standard to him.
Wait...are y'all conceding the apparent *fact* demonstrably exposed by this war, that Russia is essentially impotent, and poses next to nil threat against their bold claims? Haven't y'all been saying all along how utterly terrified we ought to be of this Hitleresque/Napoleonic-esque juggernaught, just fit'n to plow through the Ukr, into NATO, then Europe, then across the Atlantic, and invade our Eastern seaboard? Which the hell is it? Are y'all laughing with me at Russia's impotence, or shitting your britches with Doh! Biden over how very scary the Russian rust bucket war mach...'er, uh, club and stone brigade--is?
