War in Ukraine

Do you fire your top defense minister if you're winning?

 

Ukraine capturing inch by inch with massive losses. Remnants of an entire company surrendering at Klescheevska.

 

They've only had good things to say about the equipment we've sent to them, from HIMARS to Javelins to Leopards (soon to be Abrams) to Bradleys and more. They know that they have much better equipment than their opponents, and they seem grateful for that. They know that they are in the fight because of these weapons. And fighting "on the cheap" means that we can afford to send more of these weapons than we would if we were to do it otherwise, so they are probably happy about that.

 

How many generals has Russia fired in this war? Do you fire your generals if you are winning?

 

Look how tiny Putin's head is compared to Un's.

 

Trump must be really jealous.

 

it’s laughable to you because (1) you have no vision and (2) you are satisfied with the status quo. That makes you the problem. If you don’t want the govt to give tax credits ( I don’t) then make your vote matter. Stop voting for the politicians because you have party loyalty.

 

Probably should ask the families of the now likely hundreds of thousands of fallen if it’s come cheap for them.

 

Very unusual statement from a blind lawyer who seems obsessed with protecting the status quo of spending $876 billion a year on defense. If Ukraine gets enough semi-modern weapons to destroy Russia's military, we have an opportunity to dramatically reduce our defense spending (like we did in the 1990's). This, at the very least, would lead to balanced budgets (shocking!) and an opportunity to either reduce taxes or spend money on things that would benefit both teachers and retired Marines (outrageous!).

You'll notice that I have revised my writing style (unbelievable!) because I think you might respond better to click-baiting language. Let me know if the words are too big.

 

Ukrainian males considering pulling out all the stops to avoid mobilization …

https://x.com/mylordbebo/status/1698838612987552155?s=61

 

I’m a history major and I never realized this. Obviously creating a battering ram against Russia is not a new idea. You see how the first time worked out …

https://x.com/navsteva/status/1698786232946348483?s=61

 

I'm sure they know that we are doing the best we can without actually fighting in the war. And I'm sure they appreciate the fact that they are still breathing and living free, which they might not be doing without the donations of western weapons. I'm equally certain that they blame only one country for their misfortunes, and that would be Russia.

Quit pretending that you give a damn about the Ukrainians. You are so desperate to see your imperialist Russia win the war, that you could care less how many Ukrainians die, as long as it, in some twisted way, makes the U.S. look bad. You are the most obvious tool of Russian propaganda organizations imaginable.

 

Your expression of caring for middle class Americans is touching.

 

Im the blind one? Use your vision and go find my post where I even discuss defense spending, let alone support the status quo. You are just a dishonest hack who relies upon spewing fabricated nonsense to make up for your personal/physical deficiencies. #pinkywiggle

BTW, to suggest spending money for Ukraine will work to balance our budget is worthy of a Darwin Award for original thought. Let me guess, you have an MBA from FSU.

 

unlike some of the folks here, I care about all Americans, not just the middle class or the LGBQTIHOP folks.

 

So, I assume you’ll agree, under this theory, the legion of one-way Russian Balcony vacations would mean Russia was losing?

 

Its not complicated. Even you might be able to understand it.

1980's: U.S. provides military aid to Afghanistan, helps it defeat Russia. Russian economy collapsed shortly afterwards, along with their ability to fund their military.
1990's: U.S. reduces defense spending by billions of dollars, with little or no Russian threat to worry about.

U.S. defense spending, 1990: $325 billion (5.6% of GDP)
U.S. defense spending, 1996: $288 billion (3.6% of GDP)

It's actually even further apart than the data indicates. We had about 2% inflation during that period, so $325 billion in 1990 is equivalent to $366 billion in 1996. We were saving $78 billion in defense spending just in 1996 (that's $141 billion in today's dollars). Our spending continued to drop as a percentage of GDP through the end of the 90's to 3.1% in 1999 ($298 billion, vs. $388 billion that the 1990 spending would be worth in '99, or $90 billion in savings, or $153 billion savings in today's dollars). Just for those four years, we saved about $600 billion in today's dollars. This is not fabricated nonsense. This is all fact. THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED THE LAST TIME WE WERE IN A PROXY WAR WITH RUSSIA. Obviously, it will not save us any money while the war is ongoing, but after the war is over, the savings begin and quickly accelerate.

I realize that the facts conflict with your limited worldview, and all you can do is resort to personal attacks to justify your position. But just try to accept reality here. Try to be a grownup.

U.S. Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2023

U.S. Military Spending/Defense Budget - Historical Data

Year Billions of US $ % of GDP
2021 $800.67B 3.48%
2020 $778.40B 3.72%
2019 $734.34B 3.43%
2018 $682.49B 3.31%
2017 $646.75B 3.31%
2016 $639.86B 3.41%
2015 $633.83B 3.48%
2014 $647.79B 3.70%
2013 $679.23B 4.05%
2012 $725.21B 4.48%
2011 $752.29B 4.84%
2010 $738.01B 4.92%
2009 $705.92B 4.89%
2008 $656.76B 4.46%
2007 $589.59B 4.08%
2006 $558.34B 4.04%
2005 $533.20B 4.09%
2004 $493.00B 4.02%
2003 $440.53B 3.83%
2002 $378.46B 3.45%
2001 $331.81B 3.12%
2000 $320.09B 3.11%
1999 $298.09B 3.09%
1998 $291.00B 3.20%
1997 $293.17B 3.41%
1996 $287.96B 3.56%
1995 $295.85B 3.86%
1994 $308.08B 4.22%
1993 $316.72B 4.60%
1992 $325.03B 4.97%
1991 $299.37B 4.88%
1990 $325.13B 5.61%
1989 $321.87B 5.87%
1988 $309.66B 6.07%

 

Objection! Presumes facts not in evidence in your history of posts. But

 

SUSTAINED !