The cowering republicans

So how do you plan on getting Russia to stop at Ukraine. This may be the least thought out post I have ever read here.

 

To help provide context, this is just another example of the root of fundamental distrust I have of any govt official in regards to warfare. We got what we wanted accomplished in the first 4 months then proceeded to Stay and spill blood and treasure for 20 years


https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...apers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

 

Yeah, the concept of winning over hearts and minds was a nice idea, but really it was just an occupation.

You aren't going to win over hearts and minds when you are constantly killing folks, and putting your boots on their heads.

 

It shouldn't. He's either threatening or funding most of them in D.C.

 

Wow you really don’t get it. I already said you tell Russia they can get Ukraine but if they go any further the only thing left in Russia will be rubble. You let Russia have Ukraine but make it very clear that if they step foot in a NATO country they are nuked into oblivion

 

Thanks for replying I wanted to put you on ignore but didn’t want to bother trying to find some of your drivel.

 

Meh. Leadership isn’t a numeric metric so don’t know what to tell you there. With respect to gas…are you really surprised things are complex? Saudi nationals blew up the towers and we never blinked in our relationship with them.

 

Hollow words. We wont "nuke them into oblivion" because they would start firing off every nuke they have and then you have a world that would cease to exist as we know it.

Worldwide environmental harm, a global depression probably.

They know we cant ethically back that up and that we cant bite off our own noses like that.

 

The issue is there are prevailing narratives at any point in time. After 9/11, the narrative is that we abandoned Afghanistan after they drove the Soviets out, and we left a hole that allowed the extremists take over leading to the Taliban and AlQueda. So the conventional wisdom was if we go into Afghan, we weren’t going to make the same mistake.

The problem with that narrative, which is obvious now, is that it assume we could have, either 40 years ago or 20 years ago, actually have done something to alter the countries course. In retrospect that was a clearly erroneous assumption.

The issue in that regions is that all options are bad, some are worse than others. In Afghanistan and Iraq we fully intervened and tried to stay the course and for various reasons failed badly at tremendous cost of life and resources.

As it turns out the decision in 1992 to get out of Iraq was likely the correct one, even thought it left Saddam Hussein in power as an ongoing threat. However the narrative after the gulf war was

With Libya, we decided to intervene, do our stuff and get out. The result was arguably not as bad, but we have left a long term void that a haven for terrorists.

In Syria we decided not to intervene. The result was a massive human catastrophe that resulted in massive immigration into Europe that has helped to destabilize the whole European region with populist/authoritarian movements.

 

Do you have any idea how nuclear warfare would go down? Are you serious? You think we can stop all of the nukes that Russia sends our way? Have you never heard of Mutual Assured Destruction?

 

I'm ecstatic they're killing this dog-sh*t bill. Just because something is "bipartisan" doesn't make it good. Biden is trying to do to immigration law what his god awful crime bill from the 90s did to the criminal legal system. It is harmful and not remotely consistent with the supposed values of the Democratic Party. The Republicans killing it is a victory.

 

Not sure those are similar CG. Having a couple highjackers from Saudi doesn’t seem to be similar to current European policy of simultaneously saying they fear Russian expansion while increasing purchases of Russian LNG 2 full years into the war. The US and Australia are leading exporters of LNG so it’s not like they would have to buy it from Hamas. So no, that’s what we would refer to as a false equivalency sir.

and I never said it wasn’t complex. I presented the argument that the US is being asked to go all in with money and and weapons to protect euros from a foe they are current engaged in regular commerce doesn’t make sense.

 

Or that even if we did stop all of theirs, the nuclear fallout from our bombs would cover the northern hemisphere making life on earth very difficult at a minimum, if not impossible.

Only mad men think about starting a nuclear war.

 

This post is evidence that the proposed law actually has some teeth and is worth conservative and moderate support.

But at least I’ll give you credit for ideological consistency vs blind partisanship.

 

The Ukrainians dying for lack of resources would disagree

 

That article is aug 23 and only covered up until jun 23. Very old data. While LNG imports went up, total gas imports went significantly down.

Fyi, US lng export capacity is maxed out. We cannot ship any more until more liquefaction facilities are built

The EU Is Much Less Dependent On Russian Gas But Still Isn't Ready To Give It Up

Imports of Russian gas to the EU are now down by roughly one-third, when compared to levels before Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. According to figures from Eurostat, in the third quarter of 2021, 39 percent of the EU's gas came from Russia. Two years later, in the third quarter of 2023, that amount is down to 12 percent.

 

There is no way we could stop all of their nukes or anywhere close to it. Zero chance. Both countries would be destroyed and as you said, the impacts would be far reaching.

 

The Rs killing a bill that Trump would've likely signed in a heartbeat does beg the question, if the situation in the border is so dire, why are the Rs willing to wait 12 months, at minimum, to act? I know the answer. The situation isn't so dire, and political expediency as Trump knows if Biden gets a border win, it hurts his election chances. Party over country, and Trump is the R party now.