7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Silly deflection. If the money wasn't being spent in Ukraine, would it be spent on "the homeless, the addicted, poor and so on." Is that how it works?

Not directly. But the money has to be borrowed to give to Ukraine. Then, it has to be added to the growing national debt. Which in turn eats up debt servicing payments  and decreases the amount of money left over to care for our own citizens.  Adding to the debt is slow suicide for any nation. 

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Not directly. But the money has to be borrowed to give to Ukraine. Then, it has to be added to the growing national debt. Which in turn eats up debt servicing payments  and decreases the amount of money left over to care for our own citizens.  Adding to the debt is slow suicide for any nation. 

So, you've changed your tune. From not being the best use of the money, in your opinion, to increasing the debt. If all that money were spent on the homeless, the addicted, and the poor, would that also not increase the debt? Or would God forgive it?

44 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I'll take a stab at it. The consequences are that Putin probably would be content with occupying the Russian speaking areas of the country.  He doesn't have the military capacity to threaten Europe in any serious way, let alone threaten North America.  He would not invade a NATO country because that would provoke a larger response.

 

So I say give him those areas. THEN impose sanctions on Russia that actually hurt. Total boycott of all Russian products, severing of all pipelines, cancellation of all visas and travel. Complete isolation. 

 

Now how about you return the favor?

You are awfully generous to Putin with your suggestion of gifting him other people’s homelands.

 

 

The Ukrainian’s, whose country it is, disagree with you.

 

And thankfully most outside the extreme rightwing think likewise.

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Again you are making WW2 comparisons when they are not warranted.  How about answering my basic questions about your support for the war- how much is too much, and would you go to war?

I’m not a Ukrainian, I support funding and military aid to Ukraine, precisely because of the lessons learned in WW2.

 

Contain Russia by helping the Ukrainians push Russia back to begins tge borders it occupied prior to the illegal invasion Putin ordered.

 

I believe this to be the best policy to ensure neither I, nor my children need go to war with Putin.

 

History backs this belief.

 

Isolationism and appeasement inevitably lead to war.

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So, you've changed your tune. From not being the best use of the money, in your opinion, to increasing the debt. If all that money were spent on the homeless, the addicted, and the poor, would that also not increase the debt? Or would God forgive it?

Not at all. Giving Ukraine money costs. And if it were to be spent, I would rather it be spent at home on our own citizens.  But I would also rather it not be spent than spent on Ukraine and adding to the debt we are saddling our children with.  

 

Or are you OK with adding to the burden of future generations to pay for this conflict?

48 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

But again, the questions are: how much, and for how long?  I am wary of the west getting involved in yet another proxy war like Iraq or Afghanistan.  Certainly not worth the thousands of lives and untold billions we burned up in those two crapholes.

Take that up with Putin, it is he who ordered the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not a Ukrainian, I support funding and military aid to Ukraine, precisely because of the lessons learned in WW2.

 

Contain Russia by helping the Ukrainians push Russia back to begins tge borders it occupied prior to the illegal invasion Putin ordered.

 

I believe this to be the best policy to ensure neither I, nor my children need go to war with Putin.

 

History backs this belief.

 

Isolationism and appeasement inevitably lead to war.

So let us assume that your version happens. Russia is pushed back to the original frontiers.  Oh, does this also include pushing Russia out of Crimea?  

 

Now what?

 

You think Putin will simply accept that? I thought he was a madman totalitarian in the Hitler mode.  You think Hitler would have simply stopped the war if he had been pushed back to Germany's pre-war borders? Come on, man.  

 

I favor negotiation and compromise. Letting the guy with the nukes have an exit instead of backing him into a corner. 

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Not at all. Giving Ukraine money costs. And if it were to be spent, I would rather it be spent at home on our own citizens.  But I would also rather it not be spent than spent on Ukraine and adding to the debt we are saddling our children with.  

 

Or are you OK with adding to the burden of future generations to pay for this conflict?

Yes.

 

Much better than appeasing a tyrant and condemning the young to go fight in the inevitable wars that ensue.

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Not at all. Giving Ukraine money costs. And if it were to be spent, I would rather it be spent at home on our own citizens.  But I would also rather it not be spent than spent on Ukraine and adding to the debt we are saddling our children with.  

 

Or are you OK with adding to the burden of future generations to pay for this conflict?

Actually, the money spent does go mostly to our own citizens. It's American companies that are manufacturing most of the supplies sent to Ukraine.

And given what the burden of an aggressive Russia could entail for much of the world economy, I'd say it's worth it.

Why don't you all get the hint and ignore the traitor?

19 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Not directly. But the money has to be borrowed to give to Ukraine. Then, it has to be added to the growing national debt. Which in turn eats up debt servicing payments  and decreases the amount of money left over to care for our own citizens.  Adding to the debt is slow suicide for any nation. 

I seem to remember you defending borrowing money to provide tax cuts to the already wealthy.

 

I certainly don’t recall you ever defending or calling for programs to help the poor.

 

But thanks for bringing your new found concern for the vulnerable at home to my attention.

 

I’ll keep it in mind during future discussions.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Take that up with Putin, it is he who ordered the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Nah, I will take it up with YOU.  You are the one who wants to spend gold and blood on this war. I am simply asking you how much.

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Nah, I will take it up with YOU.  You are the one who wants to spend gold and blood on this war. I am simply asking you how much.

Before it was money, now it's gold? Maybe next it will be bitcoins?

The day before his visit to the US, Zelensky was on the frontline. A true leader of Ukraine. 

 

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Nah, I will take it up with YOU.  You are the one who wants to spend gold and blood on this war. I am simply asking you how much.

As for spending blood, that would be the Ukrainians' not Americans'. And they seem extremely willing to spend it.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Why don't you all get the hint and ignore the traitor?

Traitor?  That's rich.  A very, how shall I say, totalitarian way to see someone who disagrees with you over a political/social issue.  I think I am a patriot actually. I love my country and am not willing to see it waste money or lives in a pointless conflict.  

Just now, placeholder said:

As for spending blood, that would be the Ukrainians' not Americans'. And they seem extremely willing to spend it.

So you would not support direct military intervention by NATO if Putin were to prevail and actually take over vast areas of Ukraine?  Because THAT is the blood I am talking about. If you are willing to send NATO to war with Russia to reclaim a conquered Ukraine, just say so. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes.

 

Much better than appeasing a tyrant and condemning the young to go fight in the inevitable wars that ensue.

I think this is where we differ. I do not think Russia can fight any other wars. They don't have the military capacity. I don't think  Europe or Nato are under threat from the Russian military. 

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Traitor?  That's rich.  A very, how shall I say, totalitarian way to see someone who disagrees with you over a political/social issue.  I think I am a patriot actually. I love my country and am not willing to see it waste money or lives in a pointless conflict.  

History has taught us what happens when a fascist country's imperialist ambitions go unchecked. Russia has already established it is an evil, genocidal empire which will commit any war crime to terrorise it's neighbours. Putin and Russia need to be stopped at all costs.

 

I won't ask what country you come from but I assume it's either Russia or Hungary.

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

So you would not support direct military intervention by NATO if Putin were to prevail and actually take over vast areas of Ukraine?  Because THAT is the blood I am talking about. If you are willing to send NATO to war with Russia to reclaim a conquered Ukraine, just say so. 

 

 

That was the war you were talking about? Please, pull me another one.

As for supporting a NATO intervention, yes I would. Given that the forces of Ukraine are beating the Russians, it would be a doddle for the US to do the same. The results would be similar to what happened to Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

 

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I think this is where we differ. I do not think Russia can fight any other wars. They don't have the military capacity. I don't think  Europe or Nato are under threat from the Russian military. 

Da, Ivan.

21 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Nah, I will take it up with YOU.  You are the one who wants to spend gold and blood on this war. I am simply asking you how much.

As much support as it takes and as much blood as the Ukrainians are willing to shed to defend their home country, or conversely Russians are willing to spill prosecuting their illegal war.

 

If the Ukrainians need help, give them the help they need.

52 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I am not "on Putin's side". I hope Russia loses. But we also have to look at the consequences down the road. Simply hoorawing and waiting for Russia's collapse is foolish. 

I agree,there for let us not wait and help the Ukrainian people to obtain this

necessary goal.

You give a bully like Putin any "victory" and he will see it as an encouragement to try and steal more land.

The West has been sleeping and letting things go Putins way for too long.

Crimea was a test for him,nothing bad happened?Lets go grab more!

Stop this man,it is certainly not all Russians but they have all let it slide as long as it did not involve them directly.

Now they finally start speaking out(while looking of their shoulder)

 

19 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I think this is where we differ. I do not think Russia can fight any other wars. They don't have the military capacity. I don't think  Europe or Nato are under threat from the Russian military. 

And yet you are arguing against spending money to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

 

Clearly it is very much cheaper to have Ukraine defeat Russia and creates far less risk of escalation.

 

Containing Russia back within its pre invasion borders is the Ukrainian objective and it is one that accords with international law and the maintenance of international peace.

 

 

A flame has been removed

 

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet you are arguing against spending money to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

 

Clearly it is very much cheaper to have Ukraine defeat Russia and creates far less risk of escalation.

 

Containing Russia back within its pre invasion borders is the Ukrainian objective and it is one that accords with international law and the maintenance of international peace.

 

 

Yes because I don't think there IS risk of escalation, at least in the conventional military sense. The Russian military has proved largely incompetent. It is NOT the same as the spectre the Soviet Red Army posed inthe 60s and 70s. They do not have the capability to invade western Europe or threaten NATO. 

 

And let's speculate that, with the help of the west, Ukraine is able to beat the Russians back to the pre-war borders- again, including Crimea?  Now what.....

 

You cannot seriously think Putin will just put his tail between his legs and slink off.  

 

The biggest threat of escalation IMHO is in nuclear weapons. Russia has them, lots of them.  The treat is a catastrophic defeat of the Russian Army could trigger a nuclear response.  This is what I worry about the most. 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

History has taught us what happens when a fascist country's imperialist ambitions go unchecked. Russia has already established it is an evil, genocidal empire which will commit any war crime to terrorise it's neighbours. Putin and Russia need to be stopped at all costs.

 

I won't ask what country you come from but I assume it's either Russia or Hungary.

...and you would assume wrong.   No surprise there.

 

Great hyperbole there. The MIC must love you. 

If Russian pundits and many Duma members had there way, Ukraine would already be suffering another genocidal famine killing millions, as Stalin did to Ukrainians. There is only one solution to this. Defeat the tyrant.

23 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

More unsubstantiated hyperbole.  Putin is not Stalin, Russia is not the USSR.  Relax.    

 

I honestly think a lot of this is a kind of hangover T D S.   Anyone who is not lock-step in line must be a Putin sympathizer.   It is a weak argument.  I have yet to see any evidence that Russia is any kind of military threat to Europe. 

 

China is by far the larger and deeper problem.   

Hyperbole? You’re not keeping up with the rhetoric from those I mentioned. Not that you care as you have made perfectly clear. ????