|
[QUOTE=boatnt;4827287]
Originally Posted by hoodoo
(Post 4827286)
is that a MAGA hat his wearing?
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.off...bc0ea4a7fe.jpg on |
Originally Posted by Shotgunn
(Post 4826995)
Respectfully, the question still stands. I do agree with your WW2 analogy, however times are different now. NATO was created for this very reason. Speaking of NATO I wonder why ukraine was not admitted? I guess my frustration comes down to this one FACT, we are more concerned about a border in Europe than we are with our own border. We need to worry about America first.
As for our borders go - it make me want to vomit. It's sickening. I hate it and can't do a dam thing about it other than to urge my fellow Republicans to nominate a Republican with the best chance of winning come 2024 so they can again secure the border. To win a general election a candidate must appeal to Independents. Trump did that in 2016 but Independents turned away from him in 2020. He's done noting but make himself less appealing to Independents since. Trump could win the nomination but would be hard pressed to beat any decent candidate should the Dems put one up -like a Klobuchar. But who knows if the Left does that. The far Left is as unreasonable and illogical as the far right. |
Originally Posted by Shotgunn
(Post 4827146)
So the question remains unanswered. As far as ukraine giving up their nukes, that was their choice and it did not benefit America. As far as "WE" agreed to protect them? Who the hell is "WE" ? do you mean the administration in power at the time ? "WE" did not have the authority to make that contract. Though, they might of had the power, as in Commander and chief, to protect ukraine, that power ended when "WE" left office. If this moron that is currently residing at the Whitehouse makes a deal to protect say MS13 gang members in el salvador it does not mean we the people are responsible for that till the end of time. Speaking of deals, do you know of the iran nuclear arms deal? Well Trump undid that deal, and now the current idiot in chief is going to redo the deal even worse for us. You seem like an intelligent person think about it. Ukraine gives up it's nukes and "WE" agree to defend them with our blood and treasure till the end of time? If ukraine was allowed to join NATO then there would be a treaty to defend them. Ukraine was not allowed, for obvious reasons they are corrupt and have little to offer. What putin is doing is horrific, he is a war criminal, and though I dont wish death on any human, the world would be a much better place without him. Such atrocities have been going on every day that I have been on this earth, in various parts of this planet. We are not the world's police force. We have the highest gas prices, the highest inflation and the highest illegal border crossings in history. Maybe it is time for the USA to be selfish, sit this one out, and worry about fixing this broken country.
Much like Saddam's grab for Kuwait's hydrocarbons in 1991, Putin's motive for invading Ukraine may simply be to gain control of their rich hydrocarbon and mineral resources, and more ports. If allowed it would make his leverage against the West even stronger. If the war were to stop today and Putin could control the resource rich areas he occupies in the East and South he would consider this invasion a strategic success. Allowing him to get away with this invasion of resource-rich Ukraine would not be good for the West long-term. It would also encourage China to act on Taiwan. Remember, the West may be spending treasure on this war, but we are spilling no blood. Ukraine is doing all of the heavy lifting - and dying. If we can merely give them the weapons and Ukraine uses them to defeat Putin's invasion then we have gotten off incredibly cheap. As is pointed out below when Trump was still President, we are not fighting in Ukraine nor did we promise to fight in Ukraine. We are just supporting them via arms to fight off an invader. It's a great deal for us if we can keep it to a conventional war. You have to draw a line somewhere with despots like Putin. Giving arms for Ukraine is the line they have drawn. I agree with them. None of our troops are fighting, none of our troops are even in the country. We are spilling no blood. It's a reasonable line to draw IMO. Otherwise you are willing to back up all the way to the Med and/or the English channel to appease Putin and his nukes the next time he has ambitions. You have to draw a line somewhere. IMO I just think this war could have been avoided if Biden had taken a much stronger stance before the invasion. He foolishly gave Putin the notion that there would be a limited response. """Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond. Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances". |
Originally Posted by Marginmn
(Post 4827299)
Yes, we merely gave them assurances we would not just stand by and do nothing if they were invaded - we did not sign a treaty in blood to fight and die beside them. That said, Ukraine is an independent European country of some 44 million people. Allowing an unprovoked, unjustified, naked land-grab of a resource rich EU country of 44 million free people is not a good precedent for the West to allow to go unchallenged.
Much like Saddam's grab for Kuwait's hydrocarbons in 1991, Putin's motive for invading Ukraine may simply be to gain control of their rich hydrocarbon and mineral resources, and more ports. If allowed it would make his leverage against the West even stronger. If the war were to stop today and Putin could control the resource rich areas he occupies in the East and South he would consider this invasion a strategic success. Allowing him to get away with this invasion of resource-rich Ukraine would not be good for the West long-term. It would also encourage China to act on Taiwan. Remember, the West may be spending treasure on this war, but we are spilling no blood. Ukraine is doing all of the heavy lifting - and dying. If we can merely give them the weapons and Ukraine uses them to defeat Putin's invasion then we have gotten off incredibly cheap. As is pointed out below when Trump was still President, we are not fighting in Ukraine nor did we promise to fight in Ukraine. We are just supporting them via arms to fight off an invader. It's a great deal for us if we can keep it to a conventional war. You have to draw a line somewhere with despots like Putin. Giving arms for Ukraine is the line they have drawn. I agree with them. None of our troops are fighting, none of our troops are even in the country. We are spilling no blood. It's a reasonable line to draw IMO. Otherwise you are willing to back up all the way to the Med and/or the English channel to appease Putin and his nukes the next time he has ambitions. You have to draw a line somewhere. IMO I just think this war could have been avoided if Biden had taken a much stronger stance before the invasion. He foolishly gave Putin the notion that there would be a limited response. """Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond. Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances". |
|
This is going to hurt the pocket this summer.
|
Our purchasing power is dropping like a rock in the lake. I stopped this AM at Super1 to get Ozarka 3 quart bottled water for the shop. Was $.88 a bottle . Now &1.48 for the same. Just water. Obviously I can absorb that cost. But I'm not happy about it.
I read this AM that ALDI grocery (Based from Germany) which has stores here in US raising prices 30-50% as of today. They just opened up a location here and are currently building out a second. With Russia stopping energy to the EU chit is getting real. I usually put fertilizer down at our home on the landscaping. Not this year . Osmocote 50# bag $132.00 . Not happening, was $86. We all have our experiences, for some - none of this will change their lifestyle one bit , no matter how bad chit gets. For a big majority though, it will...including me at some point. Lafayette La , regular $3.70's .... Diesel still in $4.60's. I'd like to give a big shout out to all who voted for this administration...hope your happy now. |
Originally Posted by open87
(Post 4827662)
I'd like to give a big shout out to all who voted for this administration...hope your happy now. |
|
Perhaps it’s time to petition Congress to introduce a vote of no confidence in the president and his administration. This based on his cognitive abilities choosing his VP as well as the time of coming into office where he chose his cabinet members.
None of these people have the best interests of the United States in mind while doing anything to date. They are hell-bent on ruining our country at this point. A vote of no confidence would introduce an emergency election with new candidates, etc. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.