The dangers of isolationism. What would happen if the U.S. is no longer the world #1 power.

And put the whole world at risk of another global war.

 

So, you are in complete support of supplying Ukraine with what they need to protect their boarders.

 

Supporting Ukraine is containing a local war that could become global

Which elites are you talking about?

 

The WEF elites.

 

Well we won't be involved.

 

"Noone said: ↑
And put the whole world at risk of another global war."

 

I don't see the risk. What are the sides in this "global war?"

 

Totalitarian dictatorships against self governance.

 

Although I admire the attempt to counter my points I think you might could have done a better job than simply Na Uh and Reagan's fault.

 

True. and I never made that claim. The Navy's mission our having some 160 bases throughout the world and our globalist policies prove it.

 

All of this over assumptions by my Avatar? Tsk tsk.

Okay, let me explain to you why my Avatar is Brazil friendly.

I am a Brazilian jazz composer (it's a hobby), always have been since The Girl From Ipanema' was a hit song in 1964.

Secondly, the flag handily allows me to recognize at a moment's glance my threads out of the line up on the front page.

But those two are the ONLY reasons for the Brazilian avatar, it has NOTHING to do with politics. I was born in Texas, raised in the south and we moved to CA in the 60s, I've lived in 5 states, and am an American in every way.

If you had read 'about me' on my profile, you might have understood this.

though I'm happy Brazil got rid of Bolsonaro, I'm in no way beating the samba drum for their politics. You think America has red tape, it's much worse down there.

 

I'd add Biden to that list. If we elect either of those old morons, yeah... it will be a rough four years.

 

Non sequitur.

Here's what I support:

1) I'm in complete support of supplying U.S. immigration authorities with what they need to protect our borders.

2) Consistent with my previous remarks and position, I'm in complete support of the Europeans cleaning up the messes in their own neighborhood and them supplying Ukraine with what they need to protect their borders

3) I support limited conditional aid to Ukraine.

For the record, I don't subscribe to Golem's belief/scenario that Russia seeks to conquer Ukraine in its entirety. Even before the revanchist warmonger in the Kremlin invaded Ukraine in 2022 I suspected it was only a matter of time before he moved to secure a land bridge between the strategic naval base at Sevastopol and the surrounding Crimean Peninsula to western Russia, and it is my belief his two-bit military has accomplished that objective. Any aid we provide in the future, in my opinion, should be provided with that in mind.

I think it's reasonable for Americans to ask what are we getting out of this aid, will we be repaid, can the Ukrainians take back the territory it lost in 2022, etc.. So far, I don't think we've received any satisfactory answers to those questions.

 

I think I went beyond Na-Uh, but, I'll do better.

• You claimed we are not a super power - I claim we are THE worlds superpower. Proved by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's complete backing of of threats to Taiwan when the realized their "Russian Tech" would be no match for U.S.
• You claim that we had a "MASSIVE" defeat in Afghanistan. It wasn't, it wasn't even OUR defeat. In spite of our "MASSIVE" training and arming of the Afghan army, they immediately laid down their (our) arms and rolled over before we could even get out of their country. AND, don't forget it was Dubya Cheney that got us into that war in the first place.
  
• You claimed that OUR government is incapable. I claim quite the contrary. In spite of the total bumbling of the COVID pandemic by tRaitor tRump; under President Biden's leadership we have emerged from it better off than any other major nation on the planet.
• You claime we are "in decline". When nothing could be further from the truth. Right now we have the strongest economy in the world and a Military that is more powerful than the next 10 militarizes of the world ... COMBINED!!!
• I pointed out that our decline as the worlds manufacturer was the result of Regan's deregulation and voodoo economics. And we are coming back as a world class manufacturer under President Biden.
• You pointed out that we are paying a terrible amount in interest to the FED and bond holders. I pointed out that is because Regan was the first president to take debt growth exponential. Since, when money is created as debt (all our money is), we don't create the interest to pay on it we are forced to pay an exponentially increasing amount of interest.

 

Absolute clueless nonsense. We already live in a globalized world where there are regional powers.

Again, absolute nonsense. Regions and regional powers already exist in a meaningful way in our global economy, and they will continue to do so in the future. Your crackpot theory that the two are mutually exclusive to one another is hilariously divorced from reality.

 

Afghanistan wasn't a military defeat. The mission was political, not military, and it was well-intentioned but with almost no chance of success because of their culture. The smart move would have been to get out far sooner. Biden did right by getting us out.

I wouldn't say we're in decline so much as that we're no longer the only major power standing. WWII devastated almost all the developed world except the US, and China wasn't really developed yet. It was always only a matter of time before the rest of the world recovered and we were no longer the only mountain of power in the world.

 

NO, it was very much a sequitur.
You said: "No more burying our family members in Arlington so others won't have to bury theirs. I've had my fill."

I replied: "So, you are in complete support of supplying Ukraine with what they need to protect their boarders."

Which is as "sequitur" as it gets.

This reply is a "Non-sequitur"

Which has nothing to do with what I replied to.

Which is completely inconsistent with our treaty obligations to Ukraine and NATO

Which is inconsistent with your previous statement because, that IS what we're doing.

Not anymore they don't. But that was Putin's original intention.

You got the two bit part right.

I'm sure OUR government is taking all factors in to account, especially Putin's threats of nuclear war.

We are getting a pass on being directly involved in another war. Which is well worth the cost we've expended ... with dividends.

Ukraine would be doing much better if our tRumpublican House would have continued U.S. support for Ukraine instead of following Putin's puppet's, tRaitor tRump, wishes.

 

Except it's not economics, it's WAR, which knows no boundaries.

 

Your claim is problematic on a number of fronts, mainly due to its oversimplification of complex geopolitical issues and promotion of a conspiracy theory without substantial evidence. To wit;

Saying that supporting Ukraine is just about backing Western bigwigs hungry for global control really simplifies the whole picture. It's not just about ambitions for dominance. There are tons of reasons why countries and international groups are throwing their support behind Ukraine, such as standing up for its sovereignty, sticking to international law, upholding democratic values, and human rights, not to mention the security worries tied to keeping the region stable and reacting to unprovoked attacks.

Then, there's this idea floating around that Western elites are conspiring to use this conflict to beef up their own power, but hang on, where's the proof? Critiquing leaders is one thing, but saying there's this single-minded, secretive plot for war kind of misses the mark. It overlooks how foreign policy really gets made—through public and democratic methods.

And let's not forget about Ukraine in all of this. The way some talk, you'd think Ukraine has no say in the matter and is just being used in a bigger power play. This viewpoint doesn't do justice to Ukraine's real concerns for its safety, its right to its land, and its sovereignty, not to mention what its government and people actually want.

Focusing too much on this "Western plutocrats" angle also skips over a big piece of the puzzle: international law. The rules that all countries are supposed to play by, like those in the United Nations Charter, say you can't just use force against another country. So, when nations support Ukraine, they're really standing up for these principles.

And about this talk of "the elites" wanting war to extend their influence—it's a bit too general, isn't it? It lumps together a lot of different people with possibly different aims and roles in world affairs, making it seem like there's a uniform agenda. It misses the complexity and the varying viewpoints and interests that are part of the equation.

All in all, understanding why states act the way they do and questioning the motives of their leaders is essential. But it's important to approach this with a detailed understanding of how international relations work, a respect for the sovereignty and decision-making of nations, and a consideration for the laws and ethical standards that shape how countries interact on the global stage.

Here's the thing, if all you can do is see the world through a simplistic lens, I recommend that you you study the subject more, learn more about all various complexities and dynamics of the thing, and not rely on sound bites from the echo chamber of social media. just sayin'.

 

That's a strawman. The ONLY point in the mention of boot camp was that I learned about the salient mission of the Navy in Boot Camp, and yes, they can, whether you believe it or not, teach the boots what the Navy's Mission is, and, in fact, they would be derelict if they didn't. this business about 'critical thinking' really has nothing to do with why I mentioned it.

Your going off on a tangent on boot camp, which was NOT the point.

There's a word for it, it's called, you are 'pettifogging' my argument.

Please reread my comment, and rebut on point.

 

Life has some 16 million colors. if you can only see Red, Green, and Blue, you are missing out on life.

And, if you are metaphor challenged; hint: that was a metaphor.

Yeah, 'subtle'.

LOL!

 

Your response is non sequitur.

It does not follow from my remark/position about one of the benefits of our not being the world's #1 military power - no more burying our family members in Arlington - that I have to support or our country has to support Ukraine's war effort or the war effort of any other country. I don't know where in the world of logical fallacies you came up with that leap, but for the most part my position suggests that we don't, but I think this is something we need to judge on a case by case basis, and the first criteria has to be whether or not our support serves our own interests, do the pros outweigh the cons, etc..

Your question concerned protecting borders, and I believe I made it clear that our borders are my primary concern, not Ukraine's. The Traitor Joe should also hold this position, but clearly him and the "progressive" lunatics pulling his strings don't.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and the Budapest Memorandum does not obligate the U.S. to provide military support to Ukraine if one of the other signatories violates its commitment to respect Ukraine's political and territorial sovereignty, which Russia clearly has done.

On the other hand, that does not mean we do not have to provide Ukraine with military support, and as I stated I support providing Ukraine with limited, conditional aid, which would include lethal weapons and humanitarian aid.

Traitor Joe & Co. have pretty much cut Ukraine a blank check, and as I stated earlier, they have failed to answer some very important questions pertaining to our own country's interests and Ukraine's prospects in this war.

And for the record, I am not like a lot of people who think Ukraine has already lost this war and we should pull the plug. The Afghans defeated the Soviets after a long war of attrition and I think the Ukrainians may be able to do the same. However, I think they need to show us that they can. Last summer's much anticipated 'counter-offensive' never panned out to say the least, but I do not hold Ukraine entirely to blame for that. I have a lot faith in its soldiers, but like the Afghan mujahideen they have an enormous task before them. If Ukraine does win this war, it will take a long time to do it, and it will require not only victories on the battlefield but turning the Russian public against the war and sapping their will to fight it.

I wondered about that at first but it's also possible that the drives in the north and northeast were feints. What I do know is that Putin waged a determined campaign in the south and he has shown a determination to hang onto that territory, as I expected.

And that would be a compliment in many respects. What passes for "logistics" in the Russian military has been a joke for decades, and the quality and morale of its conscript cannon fodder is terrible. The Russian army is no match for our own - by a long shot.

I don't know what this administration is taking into account, but I would assume that the Pentagon is planning for every eventuality, whether it be Golem's scenario or my more limited scenario where Russia's forces are going to be more concentrated and their poor logistics capabilities will be less of a liability.

As for Putin's nuclear saber rattling, I don't pay that any mind. He's bluffing, and we shouldn't be basing our strategy on his simian chest-beating.

First of all, we have no business or need to get directly involved in that conflict, just as we had no business or need to get ourselves mixed up in the Balkans and that cluster-foxtrot in Libya.

As for whether or not the vast amounts of money and material we have dumped into that conflict have been worth it, I'm not convinced that they have, much less that they have paid dividends. By all means, feel free to tell me about these dividends because Traitor Joe has failed to articulate what they are, whether we are going to get repaid, etc.. The only thing I hear out of Traitor Joe's mouth are demands for more money, which doesn't cut it.

And Ukraine would have gotten that support, or a significant portion of it, if Traitor Joe was willing to take action to secure our own border, but he isn't. To make matters worse, I've heard a rumor that the idiot Putin endorsed for president in 2024 (Traitor Joe) is thinking of rescinding the EOs that opened the border after the SOTU speech when he could have rescinded them a long time ago when the wrangling over funding began. In that case, aid to Ukraine would have been held up on account of Traitor Joe's intransigence on keeping the border open and then flip-flopping later in order to score political points that him and his handlers hope will shore up his sagging approval numbers heading into the election.

smh

It's bad enough that Traitor Joe's weakness and incompetence encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine again, but it's even worse that he would screw Ukraine over for the most cynical and self-serving reasons imaginable, but that's par for the course with Traitor Joe & Co..

 

You want to discuss international law, global economy, global dominance with people who thinks Hugo Chavez’s ghost created a server and then hacked in to all the voting machine and manipulated election result in 2020?

Good luck!

 

It's both, and Golem made no such distinction and would have only compounded his error if he had.

Nevertheless, my point stands - we already live in a globalized world that has regional powers.

 

Huh? You think that NATO is like a golf club? And who's that lunatic in your avatar?