All Things Russia & Ukraine

[a fan]

Defeatism is rampant among MAGA adherents.

Pull your head out & get a grip.
Look where your 2+ years of happy talk & name calling have brought us.
You can't be defeated if you're not in the game....yet.
A stupid war. We led the Ukrainians to the slaughter.

Yes, defeatism has been consistently strong. On numerous topics.

With regard to Ukraine specifically, very defeatist, always the negative never the positive. Always woe is me, Ukraine with the aid of the West can’t possibly withstand and pushback Russia (and why would we even want to stop Russian expansion?). We need to spend massive amounts of money on our military of course, but why would we care about a white Christian authoritarian kleptocracy expanding toward our treaty allies? Those Euroburghers are a bunch of socialists not really our allies.

And those Ukrainians are really a bunch of corrupt Nazis secretly allied with Democrats against our Leader.

So, let’s go back on our promises to support Ukraine’s defense of its sovereignty and early stage democracy against a murderous much larger and heavily armed neighbor.

MAGA

Blah. Blah Blah. NeoCon Ideological claptrap. Look at the results on the ground. Realism is not defeatism.

We don't have the capacity to give Ukraine what they need. We haven't from the start.
The costly, ill conceived, Hail Mary counteroffensive failed.
You can't make a speech, dump billions of $$$ on it & then expect immediate results.
Magical thinking.You believed our propaganda.

Look at the air defense munitions expended in defending Israel for just one night.
We've given Ukraine just 1 US Patriot battery. Their F-16 pilots are still in AZ learning how to fly & fight their new (used) jets.

What's Biden's plan ? He's not telling us. You just spout political talking points with no basis in reality.

and you've been spouting isolationist defeatism and appeasement for years.
Reagan would be embarrassed by this MAGA woe is me BS.

I was quite realistic.
Surprised by the Ukrainian resilience and the initial Russian ineptitude, horrified by the Russian genocidal tactics, I agreed with supporting Ukraine in their fight, incrementally as they could absorb and train on unfamiliar weaponry. I thought it would take much longer to actually pushback Russia all the way, much as Biden and the Pentagon repeatedly warned, though there was a chance that the Russian forces might fold at some point, collapsing back. But don't count on it. But turns out killing any retreating soldiers was enough to keep them in their trenches while they prepared for the next wave and built tactical resilience themselves. Without air cover, Ukraine couldn't make progress. I was in favor of more air cover, more capabilities sooner, but recognized that it's more complicated if we weren't going to do it directly.

It's going to take longer.
But Russia must not prevail, their aggression must not succeed.

And on an American cash and blood basis, this effort is ridiculously cheap relative to strategic value. It's unfortunate that we live in a world of authoritarian ambitions, but that's the real reality.

But we get it, you and your MAGA ilk want to mirror their nationalist authoritarianism, especially that white christian form Putin espouses.

You offer nothing but condescending snark & non-specific political bromides.
Reagan was too smart to get us involved in a mess like this.

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

[PizzaSnake]

Agreed, and then further fuss about the military complex, SA's, defense spending, making govt bigger, deficit spending, and anything that is NOT aligned w/their pov.

There’s a wide range of views on here on multiple issues, not sure you and cradle are differentiating fairly “their POV”.

Only a few can claim full coherence, and frankly while I admire coherence and consistency, I think it can easily devolve to simplistic naïveté rather than recognizing complexities and interdependencies between various choices.

Likewise the counter responses can be too simplistic.

For instance, I see the Ukraine situation as first and foremost a moral question. Do we stand against brutal aggression violating all international law by an authoritarian kleptocracy seeking to subjugate and subsume a nascent democracy? If so, at what level of “cost”? If not, at what level of cost? And I also see it in the context of other authoritarian potential aggression against democracies and what that might mean to our currently strong position in the world, economically and otherwise.

Israel likewise is first and foremost a moral question of whether the people of Israel must live with brutal terrorism perpetually. And how best to reduce or eliminate that current awful reality. However, there is a complicating moral question as to what kind of reality must Gazans and Palestinians face due to the dominance and outright aggression of Israel under current leadership. And the complications of ME dynamics.

These are not equivalent questions, they are complicated.

As the sage of Baltimore said:

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

H. L. Mencken


Unfortunately, I believe much of the simplicity comes from emotional responses that precluded careful examination of “facts” at hand as well as misplaced beliefs we may hold to be self-evident. I know personally that almost everyday reveals “cracks” in the edifices I felt were unassailable.

Question is, as the foreign mis and disinformation campaigns swirl, are we able to resist the temptation to devolve into disunity rather than coalesce around some basic shared values? We don’t have to agree on everything, but we sure as hlel better agree on some things…

[OCanada]

We have recently had GOP congresspersons on the floor of the House repeat Russian propaganda word for word.

[old salt]

...a request for clarification.

I recall you multiple times saying that you supported defensive weaponry for Ukraine such that they did not need to live in fear of ongoing death from the sky. Is that accurate or is that coupled only with capitulation to Russia?

Ceasefire agreement before any defensive weapons?

Is your “strategy” to starve Ukraine of weapons until they surrender?

I am fully comfortable with discussion of what Biden should do differently to more effectively support Ukraine and achieve a stronger global strategic position, but defeatism and alignment with Putin are off the table. Yes, Reagan would be appalled at you guys calling yourselves Republicans.

FTR -- I still support immediate defensive only military support on a Lend-Lease basis with no precondition of a cease fire.

Reagan was smart enough to defeat the USSR by strengthening & increasing our arsenal without having to expend it.
Biden thinks he can defeat Russia by expending our arsenal faster than we can replenish it -- just as he has drained our strategic petroleum reserve.

My strategy is to strictly limit our military aid to a defensive strategy geared to maintaining the present line of control & to squelch the wish-casting of a return to 1992 borders. Don't attack the Kerch bridge, the railroad to Crimea through the land bridge territory, or conduct deep strikes into Russia.

Let our EU allies know that the extent of our continued support of NATO will be proportionate to their collective increase to NATO's readiness & combat capability on the eastern flank.

That's not defeatist, it's survivalist.

[old salt]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.
Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.
Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.
Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

[MDlaxfan76]

...a request for clarification.

I recall you multiple times saying that you supported defensive weaponry for Ukraine such that they did not need to live in fear of ongoing death from the sky. Is that accurate or is that coupled only with capitulation to Russia?

Ceasefire agreement before any defensive weapons?

Is your “strategy” to starve Ukraine of weapons until they surrender?

I am fully comfortable with discussion of what Biden should do differently to more effectively support Ukraine and achieve a stronger global strategic position, but defeatism and alignment with Putin are off the table. Yes, Reagan would be appalled at you guys calling yourselves Republicans.

FTR -- I still support immediate defensive only military support on a Lend-Lease basis with no precondition of a cease fire.

Reagan was smart enough to defeat the USSR by strengthening & increasing our arsenal without having to expend it.
Biden thinks he can defeat Russia by expending our arsenal faster than we can replenish it -- just as he has drained our strategic petroleum reserve.

My strategy is to strictly limit our military aid to a defensive strategy geared to maintaining the present line of control & to squelch the wish-casting of a return to 1992 borders. Don't attack the Kerch bridge, the railroad to Crimea through the land bridge territory, or conduct deep strikes into Russia.

Let our EU allies know that the extent of our continued support of NATO will be proportionate to their collective increase to NATO's readiness & combat capability on the eastern flank.

That's not defeatist, it's survivalist.

And none of that is supported by Trump and the MAGA acolytes. They say no $, period. They pose around that, but that's the position, no $ no weapons. Certainly no objective of victory, just defeat for Ukraine...after all, as MTG just said again, Ukraine is led by Nazis.

But here's another take on what you just said, Ukraine must accept that any weapons they get can only be used to defend current positions, no pushback, no penalties for continued Russian bombardment.

And it fails in any way to address that Putin has no intention or incentive to stop.

So, yes, defeatist. Russia succeeds for sure in taking 1/3rd of Ukraine and continues to pound the other two thirds.

So, the choice before us in November, and right now in our support, is a party and its leader who actively want Putin to succeed and which are no longer committed to NATO versus a party and its leader who, right or wrong, think it's important to stand against this aggression firmly so that other aggressors and aggression is deterred.

I think there's valid criticism to be had for the latter group and leader and various tactical decisions, but the alternative should be a total non-starter.

We are by far the leading economic and military power in the world with enormous influence on the rules of international engagement, overwhelmingly to the benefit of the us and our allies.

The two fundamental questions are 1) whether we will abdicate such international leadership and economic advantage by retreating inwardly and 2) whether we will remain the moral leader at all or will we actually believe that our nation is weak and immoral if not led by a more authoritarian leader and his acolytes under a 'patriotic' banner of a form of Christian Nationalism?

[a fan]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Yeah....you sorta "forgot" to refute what I wrote.

Know why? Every word I wrote is true. He armed, trained, and funded, what would become Al Q. Whoops.

You don't care, of course, because of the magic R. You can't help yourself, and couldn't call balls and strikes if your life depended on it.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.

Didn't say that Reagan didn't end the Cold War, and that Soviets burning money and people in Afghanistan didn't help attain that goal. Pay attention to what your fellow posters JUST ONCE.

Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.

That's great. Why was OBL there in the first place? Oh, that's right: we bankrolled and armed AlQ in Afghanistan, who passed on what they learned from Reagan's CIA. Whoops.

Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.

Right. Because ending the Cold War wasn't "regime change". Nor was backing Saddam so that he didn't get ousted, and so that, in the Reagan Admin's brilliant mind, he could counter Iran. You know: boilerplate Neo-Con meddling in countries that have NOTHING to do with America.

And FFS, Old Salt: Iran Contra ring a bell? But sure, Reagan wasn't a Neo-Con, f'ing around with overthrowing governments and other CIA shenanigans overseas.

Why do you come on here and flat out lie like this to protect your magic R? Reagan did plenty of good, and plenty of bad things, like all Presidents. Calling out the bad things won't kill you, I promise.

Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

Yep. But where'd they learn communications, how to not be found, and all the other tactical stuff that guys like me know NOTHING about, and guys like you know PLENTY about? That's right: Reagan's CIA.

You really can't just admit that in Afghanistan we won the battle with the Soviets, but lost the war with terrorists? Can't manage it?

Okie-dokie.

[cradleandshoot]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Yeah....you sorta "forgot" to refute what I wrote.

Know why? Every word I wrote is true. He armed, trained, and funded, what would become Al Q. Whoops.

You don't care, of course, because of the magic R. You can't help yourself, and couldn't call balls and strikes if your life depended on it.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.

Didn't say that Reagan didn't end the Cold War, and that Soviets burning money and people in Afghanistan didn't help attain that goal. Pay attention to what your fellow posters JUST ONCE.

Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.

That's great. Why was OBL there in the first place? Oh, that's right: we bankrolled and armed AlQ in Afghanistan, who passed on what they learned from Reagan's CIA. Whoops.

Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.

Right. Because ending the Cold War wasn't "regime change". Nor was backing Saddam so that he didn't get ousted, and so that, in the Reagan Admin's brilliant mind, he could counter Iran. You know: boilerplate Neo-Con meddling in countries that have NOTHING to do with America.

And FFS, Old Salt: Iran Contra ring a bell? But sure, Reagan wasn't a Neo-Con, f'ing around with overthrowing governments and other CIA shenanigans overseas.

Why do you come on here and flat out lie like this to protect your magic R? Reagan did plenty of good, and plenty of bad things, like all Presidents. Calling out the bad things won't kill you, I promise.

Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

Yep. But where'd they learn communications, how to not be found, and all the other tactical stuff that guys like me know NOTHING about, and guys like you know PLENTY about? That's right: Reagan's CIA.

You really can't just admit that in Afghanistan we won the battle with the Soviets, but lost the war with terrorists? Can't manage it?

Okie-dokie.

So the unstable and unpredictable situation in Afghanistan no longer exists? Good to know that the present situation in Afghanistan is all sunshine, lollypops and roses. If your a woman in Afghanistan you have been relegated back to your spot in the pecking order. After all women should be seen and not heard just as the same is true with children. Any of you chaps out there want to explain that to your spouses? Get back to me how that conversation works out for you.

[OCanada]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Yeah....you sorta "forgot" to refute what I wrote.

Know why? Every word I wrote is true. He armed, trained, and funded, what would become Al Q. Whoops.

You don't care, of course, because of the magic R. You can't help yourself, and couldn't call balls and strikes if your life depended on it.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.

Didn't say that Reagan didn't end the Cold War, and that Soviets burning money and people in Afghanistan didn't help attain that goal. Pay attention to what your fellow posters JUST ONCE.

Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.

That's great. Why was OBL there in the first place? Oh, that's right: we bankrolled and armed AlQ in Afghanistan, who passed on what they learned from Reagan's CIA. Whoops.

Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.

Right. Because ending the Cold War wasn't "regime change". Nor was backing Saddam so that he didn't get ousted, and so that, in the Reagan Admin's brilliant mind, he could counter Iran. You know: boilerplate Neo-Con meddling in countries that have NOTHING to do with America.

And FFS, Old Salt: Iran Contra ring a bell? But sure, Reagan wasn't a Neo-Con, f'ing around with overthrowing governments and other CIA shenanigans overseas.

Why do you come on here and flat out lie like this to protect your magic R? Reagan did plenty of good, and plenty of bad things, like all Presidents. Calling out the bad things won't kill you, I promise.

Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

Yep. But where'd they learn communications, how to not be found, and all the other tactical stuff that guys like me know NOTHING about, and guys like you know PLENTY about? That's right: Reagan's CIA.

You really can't just admit that in Afghanistan we won the battle with the Soviets, but lost the war with terrorists? Can't manage it?

Okie-dokie.

So the unstable and unpredictable situation in Afghanistan no longer exists? Good to know that the present situation in Afghanistan is all sunshine, lollypops and roses. If your a woman in Afghanistan you have been relegated back to your spot in the pecking order. After all women should be seen and not heard just as the same is true with children. Any of you chaps out there want to explain that to your spouses? Get back to me how that conversation works out for you.

Or you can avoid the middle man and ask here where women have fewer rights now than they did before.

In Afghanistan Trump shut it down and in the process degrated those who sacrificed by signing what is essentially a surrendet document eith a pullout date far too early for tge situation to be successful also freeing 5,000 terrorists and their leader.

[MDlaxfan76]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.
Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.
Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.
Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

Mmm, the Cold War did not end during Reagan's tenure though it's reasonable to say that upping the ante through tougher policies and spending, rather than detente, contributed to the realization of Gorbachev that the Soviets couldn't keep up. Gorbachev knew the truth of their economic reality, but the Cold War didn't end in any sense until HW...and even then the Russian disarray proved only to be temporary. The realities of the Cold War were renewed under Putin. Pretending detente, but moving towards a revitalization of the authoritarian regime and Russian dream.

Kissinger had very little impact on Reagan's policies, Kirkpatrick did though.

I have a problem of either wholly blaming or entirely excusing from accountability anyone, whether Reagan or other, for what transpired after their specific tenure. Too many factors to say something later was one's 'fault' or, conversely, that their actions and decisions did not have any influence on later actions. Every 'but for' is a hypothetical with many possible outcomes had other 'but for's' been different.

But let's also not call Reagan 'brilliant' or 'too smart' to make decisions that led to adverse outcomes. The gig is too hard to achieve perfection at every turn or throw. And he did not, for sure.

But I'm pretty sure he'd be appalled by the defeatist, negative on America, rhetoric of MAGA politicians and that he'd be appalled at a less than fully robust response to Russian aggression against an aspiring democracy.

[MDlaxfan76]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Yeah....you sorta "forgot" to refute what I wrote.

Know why? Every word I wrote is true. He armed, trained, and funded, what would become Al Q. Whoops.

You don't care, of course, because of the magic R. You can't help yourself, and couldn't call balls and strikes if your life depended on it.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.

Didn't say that Reagan didn't end the Cold War, and that Soviets burning money and people in Afghanistan didn't help attain that goal. Pay attention to what your fellow posters JUST ONCE.

Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.

That's great. Why was OBL there in the first place? Oh, that's right: we bankrolled and armed AlQ in Afghanistan, who passed on what they learned from Reagan's CIA. Whoops.

Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.

Right. Because ending the Cold War wasn't "regime change". Nor was backing Saddam so that he didn't get ousted, and so that, in the Reagan Admin's brilliant mind, he could counter Iran. You know: boilerplate Neo-Con meddling in countries that have NOTHING to do with America.

And FFS, Old Salt: Iran Contra ring a bell? But sure, Reagan wasn't a Neo-Con, f'ing around with overthrowing governments and other CIA shenanigans overseas.

Why do you come on here and flat out lie like this to protect your magic R? Reagan did plenty of good, and plenty of bad things, like all Presidents. Calling out the bad things won't kill you, I promise.

Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

Yep. But where'd they learn communications, how to not be found, and all the other tactical stuff that guys like me know NOTHING about, and guys like you know PLENTY about? That's right: Reagan's CIA.

You really can't just admit that in Afghanistan we won the battle with the Soviets, but lost the war with terrorists? Can't manage it?

Okie-dokie.

So the unstable and unpredictable situation in Afghanistan no longer exists? Good to know that the present situation in Afghanistan is all sunshine, lollypops and roses. If your a woman in Afghanistan you have been relegated back to your spot in the pecking order. After all women should be seen and not heard just as the same is true with children. Any of you chaps out there want to explain that to your spouses? Get back to me how that conversation works out for you.

Or you can avoid the middle man and ask here where women have fewer rights now than they did before.

In Afghanistan Trump shut it down and in the process degrated those who sacrificed by signing what is essentially a surrendet document eith a pullout date far too early for tge situation to be successful also freeing 5,000 terrorists and their leader.

oops...

[cradleandshoot]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Yeah....you sorta "forgot" to refute what I wrote.

Know why? Every word I wrote is true. He armed, trained, and funded, what would become Al Q. Whoops.

You don't care, of course, because of the magic R. You can't help yourself, and couldn't call balls and strikes if your life depended on it.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.

Didn't say that Reagan didn't end the Cold War, and that Soviets burning money and people in Afghanistan didn't help attain that goal. Pay attention to what your fellow posters JUST ONCE.

Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.

That's great. Why was OBL there in the first place? Oh, that's right: we bankrolled and armed AlQ in Afghanistan, who passed on what they learned from Reagan's CIA. Whoops.

Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.

Right. Because ending the Cold War wasn't "regime change". Nor was backing Saddam so that he didn't get ousted, and so that, in the Reagan Admin's brilliant mind, he could counter Iran. You know: boilerplate Neo-Con meddling in countries that have NOTHING to do with America.

And FFS, Old Salt: Iran Contra ring a bell? But sure, Reagan wasn't a Neo-Con, f'ing around with overthrowing governments and other CIA shenanigans overseas.

Why do you come on here and flat out lie like this to protect your magic R? Reagan did plenty of good, and plenty of bad things, like all Presidents. Calling out the bad things won't kill you, I promise.

Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

Yep. But where'd they learn communications, how to not be found, and all the other tactical stuff that guys like me know NOTHING about, and guys like you know PLENTY about? That's right: Reagan's CIA.

You really can't just admit that in Afghanistan we won the battle with the Soviets, but lost the war with terrorists? Can't manage it?

Okie-dokie.

So the unstable and unpredictable situation in Afghanistan no longer exists? Good to know that the present situation in Afghanistan is all sunshine, lollypops and roses. If your a woman in Afghanistan you have been relegated back to your spot in the pecking order. After all women should be seen and not heard just as the same is true with children. Any of you chaps out there want to explain that to your spouses? Get back to me how that conversation works out for you.

Or you can avoid the middle man and ask here where women have fewer rights now than they did before.

In Afghanistan Trump shut it down and in the process degrated those who sacrificed by signing what is essentially a surrendet document eith a pullout date far too early for tge situation to be successful also freeing 5,000 terrorists and their leader.

oops...

No oops at all. Joe Biden could have made any parameters of his choosing deciding when and how to conduct the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Joe Biden took great pleasure in chit canning as much of the trump agenda as possible. Now we have this ONE and ONLY ONE trump policy that became the holy Grail for the Biden administration because they could use it to cover up Bidens collosal failure in his botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. Now your all jibber jabbering and whining and b***ing about Biden having to abide by Trumps agreement when and where to withdraw. Your being disingenuous and you know it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Yeah....you sorta "forgot" to refute what I wrote.

Know why? Every word I wrote is true. He armed, trained, and funded, what would become Al Q. Whoops.

You don't care, of course, because of the magic R. You can't help yourself, and couldn't call balls and strikes if your life depended on it.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.

Didn't say that Reagan didn't end the Cold War, and that Soviets burning money and people in Afghanistan didn't help attain that goal. Pay attention to what your fellow posters JUST ONCE.

Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.

That's great. Why was OBL there in the first place? Oh, that's right: we bankrolled and armed AlQ in Afghanistan, who passed on what they learned from Reagan's CIA. Whoops.

Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.

Right. Because ending the Cold War wasn't "regime change". Nor was backing Saddam so that he didn't get ousted, and so that, in the Reagan Admin's brilliant mind, he could counter Iran. You know: boilerplate Neo-Con meddling in countries that have NOTHING to do with America.

And FFS, Old Salt: Iran Contra ring a bell? But sure, Reagan wasn't a Neo-Con, f'ing around with overthrowing governments and other CIA shenanigans overseas.

Why do you come on here and flat out lie like this to protect your magic R? Reagan did plenty of good, and plenty of bad things, like all Presidents. Calling out the bad things won't kill you, I promise.

Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

Yep. But where'd they learn communications, how to not be found, and all the other tactical stuff that guys like me know NOTHING about, and guys like you know PLENTY about? That's right: Reagan's CIA.

You really can't just admit that in Afghanistan we won the battle with the Soviets, but lost the war with terrorists? Can't manage it?

Okie-dokie.

Yes he can. He was a Laxpower “moderator” in the politics forum.

[PizzaSnake]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Yeah....you sorta "forgot" to refute what I wrote.

Know why? Every word I wrote is true. He armed, trained, and funded, what would become Al Q. Whoops.

You don't care, of course, because of the magic R. You can't help yourself, and couldn't call balls and strikes if your life depended on it.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.

Didn't say that Reagan didn't end the Cold War, and that Soviets burning money and people in Afghanistan didn't help attain that goal. Pay attention to what your fellow posters JUST ONCE.

Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.

That's great. Why was OBL there in the first place? Oh, that's right: we bankrolled and armed AlQ in Afghanistan, who passed on what they learned from Reagan's CIA. Whoops.

Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.

Right. Because ending the Cold War wasn't "regime change". Nor was backing Saddam so that he didn't get ousted, and so that, in the Reagan Admin's brilliant mind, he could counter Iran. You know: boilerplate Neo-Con meddling in countries that have NOTHING to do with America.

And FFS, Old Salt: Iran Contra ring a bell? But sure, Reagan wasn't a Neo-Con, f'ing around with overthrowing governments and other CIA shenanigans overseas.

Why do you come on here and flat out lie like this to protect your magic R? Reagan did plenty of good, and plenty of bad things, like all Presidents. Calling out the bad things won't kill you, I promise.

Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

Yep. But where'd they learn communications, how to not be found, and all the other tactical stuff that guys like me know NOTHING about, and guys like you know PLENTY about? That's right: Reagan's CIA.

You really can't just admit that in Afghanistan we won the battle with the Soviets, but lost the war with terrorists? Can't manage it?

Okie-dokie.

Yes he can. He was a Laxpower “moderator” in the politics forum.

Really? Interesting. And revealing.

[PizzaSnake]

Coming to ‘Murica?

“Bavarian police have arrested and accused two men of being Russian secret agents planning to bomb industrial and military sites in Germany to disrupt the delivery of aid to Ukraine. 

The two German-Russian nationals were detained in raids on Wednesday morning by police special forces in the town of Bayreuth, south-east Germany, according to the federal prosecutor’s office.”

https://www.ft.com/content/9ee73d65-957 ... c8b0bc08ae

[old salt]

The man who armed and trained Al Q in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Russia was "too smart" was he?

Neat. Reagan brought us 9/11. And armed, funded, and trained Saddam Hussein.

That's your idea of "too smart". Reagan was OG neo con, and you know it.

Your revisionist historical fantasies are comical.

Yeah....you sorta "forgot" to refute what I wrote.

Know why? Every word I wrote is true. He armed, trained, and funded, what would become Al Q. Whoops.

You don't care, of course, because of the magic R. You can't help yourself, and couldn't call balls and strikes if your life depended on it.

Reagan ended the Cold War & prompted the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a key part of that.

Didn't say that Reagan didn't end the Cold War, and that Soviets burning money and people in Afghanistan didn't help attain that goal. Pay attention to what your fellow posters JUST ONCE.

Clinton had the opportunity to take out OBL & AQ long before 9/11 & passed on it.

That's great. Why was OBL there in the first place? Oh, that's right: we bankrolled and armed AlQ in Afghanistan, who passed on what they learned from Reagan's CIA. Whoops.

Reagan did not share the NeoCon's zeal for regime change then spreading democracy.
He followed the advice of Kissinger -- the OG realist.

Right. Because ending the Cold War wasn't "regime change". Nor was backing Saddam so that he didn't get ousted, and so that, in the Reagan Admin's brilliant mind, he could counter Iran. You know: boilerplate Neo-Con meddling in countries that have NOTHING to do with America.

And FFS, Old Salt: Iran Contra ring a bell? But sure, Reagan wasn't a Neo-Con, f'ing around with overthrowing governments and other CIA shenanigans overseas.

Why do you come on here and flat out lie like this to protect your magic R? Reagan did plenty of good, and plenty of bad things, like all Presidents. Calling out the bad things won't kill you, I promise.

Desert Storm & our postwar deployments to the ME are what inspired OBL to form AQ & act.
That all came post-Reagan.

Yep. But where'd they learn communications, how to not be found, and all the other tactical stuff that guys like me know NOTHING about, and guys like you know PLENTY about? That's right: Reagan's CIA.

You really can't just admit that in Afghanistan we won the battle with the Soviets, but lost the war with terrorists? Can't manage it?

Okie-dokie.

The Shah of Iran was in power & a firm ally well before Reagan came into office.
Seizing the US Embassy & holding US citizens hostages is what Reagan inherited coming into office.
Saddam did counter Iran. If his wealthy Arab neighbors who he defended from Iran, would have helped him with his war debts,
we would not have had to go ashore in the ME. All that happened after Reagan left office. OBL would still have been an ally, had we not gone ashore in his sacred homeland. You are straining credulity in your attempt to blame Reagan, just like your silly attempts to blame Trump for Ukraine.

[old salt]

And none of that is supported by Trump and the MAGA acolytes. They say no $, period. They pose around that, but that's the position, no $ no weapons. Certainly no objective of victory, just defeat for Ukraine...after all, as MTG just said again, Ukraine is led by Nazis.

But here's another take on what you just said, Ukraine must accept that any weapons they get can only be used to defend current positions, no pushback, no penalties for continued Russian bombardment.

And it fails in any way to address that Putin has no intention or incentive to stop.

So, yes, defeatist. Russia succeeds for sure in taking 1/3rd of Ukraine and continues to pound the other two thirds.

So, the choice before us in November, and right now in our support, is a party and its leader who actively want Putin to succeed and which are no longer committed to NATO versus a party and its leader who, right or wrong, think it's important to stand against this aggression firmly so that other aggressors and aggression is deterred.

I think there's valid criticism to be had for the latter group and leader and various tactical decisions, but the alternative should be a total non-starter.

We are by far the leading economic and military power in the world with enormous influence on the rules of international engagement, overwhelmingly to the benefit of the us and our allies.

The two fundamental questions are 1) whether we will abdicate such international leadership and economic advantage by retreating inwardly and 2) whether we will remain the moral leader at all or will we actually believe that our nation is weak and immoral if not led by a more authoritarian leader and his acolytes under a 'patriotic' banner of a form of Christian Nationalism?

I don't care what you perceive that Trump or MAGA want or will do.
I'm telling you what I think matters -- Ukraine's survival, not punishing Russia.
The most critical limiting factor is the critical shortfall in Ukraine's artillery & air defense munitions & their numbers of soldiers.
Every strike into Russia or Crimea prompts a larger Russian response which further diminishes those critical Ukrainian assets.
If Ukraine collapses all you'll have to punish Putin with is rhetoric.
It's not defeatist to acknowledge the reality that Ukraine can't "win" this war on your terms, without US military intervention.

The butcher's bill :
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853 ... %2018%2C%2

[a fan]

The Shah of Iran was in power & a firm ally well before Reagan came into office.
Seizing the US Embassy & holding US citizens hostages is what Reagan inherited coming into office.
Saddam did counter Iran.

That's right.

...yet ten seconds ago, you were telling me I'm revising history by calling Reagan a neo-con. Now you're bragging about the results of mucking with countries overseas.

You keep yelling at me for wasting your time, yet here again, you're telling me that yep, Reagan is neocon.

Next time? Just write "yep, you're right, Reagan was a neo-con", and move on.

instead? YOU pick a fight. Until I hit back with facts, and you agree with facts....how about skip the argument part, and concede simple points like "Ron Reagan is a neo-con", and move on?

You are straining credulity in your attempt to blame Reagan, just like your silly attempts to blame Trump for Ukraine.

And you're not paying a lick of attention AGAIN, and telling me I wrote things I didn't write.

I didn't blame Trump for Ukraine. I blamed Trump AND Biden for Putin's invasion, together....by attempting to turn Ukraine in a "porcupine" via US arms and training, as you put it, and making invasion next to impossible.

I'll go further, because unlike you, I could give a sh(t about party affiliation: had Biden not come behind Trump promising more arms? I don't think Putin would have invaded.

Happy?

[a fan]

So the unstable and unpredictable situation in Afghanistan no longer exists? Good to know that the present situation in Afghanistan is all sunshine, lollypops and roses. If your a woman in Afghanistan you have been relegated back to your spot in the pecking order. After all women should be seen and not heard just as the same is true with children. Any of you chaps out there want to explain that to your spouses? Get back to me how that conversation works out for you.

Don't care. There are sh(tty countries all over the world that treat women like sh(t. Should we invade all of them?

You know my position: I'm OVERJOYED that our American troops are out of that pointless combat zone. And that includes the women we sent over there.

[old salt]

The Shah of Iran was in power & a firm ally well before Reagan came into office.
Seizing the US Embassy & holding US citizens hostages is what Reagan inherited coming into office.
Saddam did counter Iran.

That's right.

...yet ten seconds ago, you were telling me I'm revising history by calling Reagan a neo-con. Now you're bragging about the results of mucking with countries overseas.

You keep yelling at me for wasting your time, yet here again, you're telling me that yep, Reagan is neocon.

Next time? Just write "yep, you're right, Reagan was a neo-con", and move on.

Again -- stop telling me what I think. Reagan was not a NeoCon.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/reagan-was-no-neocon

In foreign affairs, the Reagan legacy is one of realism and restraint