HUNGER GAMES - putin SOLDIERS are SURRENDERING without FOOD and water || Video

[Litwin]

Sugar Daddy

again , you understand well the micro level of US war - economy , but i talk about macro- micro - intentional levels , Moscow has challenged us for 30 years , and this war is the cheapest way to get what we want without fighting a big war

 

[Flash]

again , you understand well the micro level of US war - economy , but i talk about macro- micro - intentional levels , Moscow has challenged us for 30 years , and this war is the cheapest way to get what we want without fighting a big war

Russia is no economic threat. We have several states with individual higher GDPs than Russia.

We see that their conventional forces are a joke.

Their nukes are the only real threat.

They are assholes and I enjoy watching your videos of the Ukrainians kicking the Russkie ass.

However, being $30 trillion in debt we need to let the Euros take care of the Russian problem. We don't have the money.

 

[Litwin]

conventional forces are a joke.

Their nukes are the only real threat.

do you think that Their nukes are in batter shape than Their conventional forces ?

 

[Flash]

do you think that Their nukes are in batter shape than Their conventional forces ?

Don't know and don't want to find out.

 

[Litwin]

Don't know and don't want to find out.

you wont, Moscow horde is bluffing they got nothing

 

[Godboy]

pro - Moscow , empty worlds ,

the reality :

I met Ronald Reagan AND Bush senior. No bullshit.


That aside, the GOP is still going to stop funding Ukraine.

 

[Godboy]

I support the Ukrainians. Hope they kick Russkie ass.

However, my country is $30 trillion in debt with massive inflation. Thanks to the Democrats mismangement my country is suffering.

We don't need to be giving welfare to anybody. Either domestic or foreign.

EXACTLY my position.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Russia is no economic threat. We have several states with individual higher GDPs than Russia.

We see that their conventional forces are a joke.

Their nukes are the only real threat.

They are assholes and I enjoy watching your videos of the Ukrainians kicking the Russkie ass.

However, being $30 trillion in debt we need to let the Euros take care of the Russian problem. We don't have the money.

Of course we have the money. Let's say we spend another $100 billion after finishing spending the $40 billion Congress has already appropriated, exactly how do you see that changing America's trajectory over the next ten years? The next 20 years? We both know it won't make a bit of difference in how we live as a nation.
But will we be better off in a world in which Russia is allowed to commit horrible atrocities in Ukraine and other places near it, atrocities that rival those of the Nazis, while the world just stands and watches? Or would we be better off if Russia, because of its battlefield losses and under the weight of sanctions, is forced to accept its western borders as permanent and return to the vales it expressed in the 1990's?

Of course the second choice is more desirable, but why must America always do it? Because America by far has the largest economy in the world and is the world's most powerful nation, and if America doesn't do it, no one else can. If America stands aside, it will create a power vacuum and that vacuum will be filled by China/Russia/Islamic terrorists, as it was filled by the NAZIs when America stood aside early in WWII, and in the long run it will cost us and everyone else much more than it will cost us right now to put things right.

 

[basquebromance]

EXACTLY my position.

will Putin be at Zelensky's feet, or will Zelensky fall at Putin's feet?

 

[Flash]

Of course we have the money. Let's say we spend another $100 billion after finishing spending the $40 billion Congress has already appropriated, exactly how do you see that changing America's trajectory over the next ten years? The next 20 years? We both know it won't make a bit of difference in how we live as a nation.
But will we be better off in a world in which Russia is allowed to commit horrible atrocities in Ukraine and other places near it, atrocities that rival those of the Nazis, while the world just stands and watches? Or would we be better off if Russia, because of its battlefield losses and under the weight of sanctions, is forced to accept its western borders as permanent and return to the vales it expressed in the 1990's?

Of course the second choice is more desirable, but why must America always do it? Because America by far has the largest economy in the world and is the world's most powerful nation, and if America doesn't do it, no one else can. If America stands aside, it will create a power vacuum and that vacuum will be filled by China/Russia/Islamic terrorists, as it was filled by the NAZIs when America stood aside early in WWII, and in the long run it will cost us and everyone else much more than it will cost us right now to put things right.

You make a couple of seemly valid points.

If Russia is crushed then it is better for us.

Also, what is a few billion more when you are already in debt for over $30 trillion?

Things like that are always the justification for interventionism. However, we need to start saying no to interventionism and concentrate on the threats to our country, like the invasion of our Southern border, the out of control Federal spending or the tremendous crime in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.

We will never get the budget under control if we don't start saying no to the welfare queens and Europe is a big one.

We need to cut Federal spending at least a couple of trillion a year. In that budget the Euroweenies don't get much.

 

[Litwin]

will Putin be at Zelensky's feet, or will Zelensky fall at Putin's feet?

will Putin be at Zelensky's feet, or will Zelensky fall at Putin's feet?

"Pооtin the Great Loser" is rapidly sending Muscovy back to 1917.

 

[basquebromance]

PUTIN FALLS AT ZELENSKY'S FEET!

 

[BothWings]

Great news!!! I guess that means Ukraine wont be needing our money anymore. I mean, every single day you make threads about how sucky Russia is and how great Ukraine is, so yeah, i think we will stop sending money aftet the GOP takes control of Congress.

You gotta love how Dems just keep backing themselves farther and farther and farther into a corner until they need to come out with some outlandish new thing to distract everybody.

 

[BothWings]

Great news!!! I guess that means Ukraine wont be needing our money anymore. I mean, every single day you make threads about how sucky Russia is and how great Ukraine is, so yeah, i think we will stop sending money aftet the GOP takes control of Congress.

You gotta love how Dems just keep backing themselves farther and farther and farther into a corner until they need to come out with some outlandish new thing to distract everybody.

OH, LOOK! KIM LAUNCHED ANOTHER MISSILE INTO THE OCEAN! MADMAN! NOBODY ELSE DOES THA-A-AT!

 

[toomuchtime_]

You make a couple of seemly valid points.

If Russia is crushed then it is better for us.

Also, what is a few billion more when you are already in debt for over $30 trillion?

Things like that are always the justification for interventionism. However, we need to start saying no to interventionism and concentrate on the threats to our country, like the invasion of our Southern border, the out of control Federal spending or the tremendous crime in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.

We will never get the budget under control if we don't start saying no to the welfare queens and Europe is a big one.

We need to cut Federal spending at least a couple of trillion a year. In that budget the Euroweenies don't get much.

There is no conflict between helping Ukraine defeat Russia and fixing our border problems or lowering crime. Foreign aid is not an all or nothing proposition. Sometimes it is America's best interests to provide financial assistance or even military assistance to other countries and sometimes it is not. The trick is to make good choices about when and how much serves our interests, not to make generalizations about never doing it.

 

[Flash]

There is no conflict between helping Ukraine defeat Russia and fixing our border problems or lowering crime. Foreign aid is not an all or nothing proposition. Sometimes it is America's best interests to provide financial assistance or even military assistance to other countries and sometimes it is not. The trick is to make good choices about when and how much serves our interests, not to make generalizations about never doing it.

That is the kind of rationalization that increased out debt and keeps the Illegals flooding in.

Yest there is a connection between open borders and giving aid to foreigners when we are $30 trillion in debt. It is not understanding what our national security priorities are.

We don't have a clear sense of priorities That is why we have millions of Illegals flooding, are $30 trillion in debt, spend almost 40% of our GDP on the cost of government and hand out welfare (both domestic and foreign) like it was candy.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That is the kind of rationalization that increased out debt and keeps the Illegals flooding in.

Yest there is a connection between open borders and giving aid to foreigners when we are $30 trillion in debt. It is not understanding what our national security priorities are.

We don't have a clear sense of priorities That is why we have millions of Illegals flooding, are $30 trillion in debt, spend almost 40% of our GDP on the cost of government and hand out welfare (both domestic and foreign) like it was candy.

Giving money to illegals and providing foreign aid to other countries are entirely different issues and I challenge you to demonstrate how the money we are spending on Ukraine is affecting our policies about the southern border.

It is not that we don't understand what our national priorities are, it's that different people have different ideas about what our national priorities should be. Just about everyone demands what they think our national priorities should be financed even if it means acquiring more debt and that the cuts should be made elsewhere. Some would argue that national defense spending is a top national priority even if it leads to deficit spending while others would argue that social welfare spending, attending to the needs of the people is a top national priority and deficits should be paid for by cuts to defense spending. Some in this group would argue that since you worked for Lockheed Martin your entire life has been financed by deficit spending. The point is the argument is less about the size of the debt than about what kind of spending led to it. If you believed that all the spending that led to the debt was absolutely necessary, you would not be complaining about the size of the debt.

 

[Flash]

Giving money to illegals and providing foreign aid to other countries are entirely different issues and I challenge you to demonstrate how the money we are spending on Ukraine is affecting our policies about the southern border.

It is not that we don't understand what our national priorities are, it's that different people have different ideas about what our national priorities should be. Just about everyone demands what they think our national priorities should be financed even if it means acquiring more debt and that the cuts should be made elsewhere. Some would argue that national defense spending is a top national priority even if it leads to deficit spending while others would argue that social welfare spending, attending to the needs of the people is a top national priority and deficits should be paid for by cuts to defense spending. Some in this group would argue that since you worked for Lockheed Martin your entire life has been financed by deficit spending. The point is the argument is less about the size of the debt than about what kind of spending led to it. If you believed that all the spending that led to the debt was absolutely necessary, you would not be complaining about the size of the debt.

If your point is that we have a bunch of morons in this country that have no idea what our national priorities are then I would agree with you.

A rational person would say that securing our border is a much higher priority than helping some other nation secure their border. We have done far too much of helping other countries fight their wars. It has cost us dearly in lives and treasure and one of the major reasons we are $30 trillion in debt and Arlington has so many graves.

Enough is enough.

I wish the Ukrainians well. I hope they prevail. However, the US should stay out of the conflict. It is not our responsibly or moral obligation to intervene.

I say that as a Vietnam veteran that personally saw the effects of the Soviets supplying the goddamn Communists. I had friends die at the hands of Soviet made weapons. On a personal note it would be very satisfying to give the Ruskkie bastards some payback. However, that is not the right thing for us to be doing as a nation.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If your point is that we have a bunch of morons in this country that have no idea what our national priorities are then I would agree with you.

A rational person would say that securing our border is a much higher priority than helping some other nation secure their border. We have done far too much of helping other countries fight their wars. It has cost us dearly in lives and treasure and one of the major reasons we are $30 trillion in debt and Arlington has so many graves.

Enough is enough.

I wish the Ukrainians well. I hope they prevail. However, the US should stay out of the conflict. It is not our responsibly or moral obligation to intervene.

I say that as a Vietnam veteran that personally saw the effects of the Soviets supplying the goddamn Communists. I had friends die at the hands of Soviet made weapons. On a personal note it would be very satisfying to give the Ruskkie bastards some payback. However, that is not the right thing for us to be doing as a nation.

So your response is that anyone who doesn't agree with you about spending priorities is a moron.

 

[SavannahMann]

If your point is that we have a bunch of morons in this country that have no idea what our national priorities are then I would agree with you.

A rational person would say that securing our border is a much higher priority than helping some other nation secure their border. We have done far too much of helping other countries fight their wars. It has cost us dearly in lives and treasure and one of the major reasons we are $30 trillion in debt and Arlington has so many graves.

Enough is enough.

I wish the Ukrainians well. I hope they prevail. However, the US should stay out of the conflict. It is not our responsibly or moral obligation to intervene.

I say that as a Vietnam veteran that personally saw the effects of the Soviets supplying the goddamn Communists. I had friends die at the hands of Soviet made weapons. On a personal note it would be very satisfying to give the Ruskkie bastards some payback. However, that is not the right thing for us to be doing as a nation.

A rational person can have very different opinions. Just because they disagree does not mean that they are irrational. It may just mean that they have a different point of view.

I was also in the Service. And something I learned was that fences are good, so long as they are defended. As a Combat Engineer, I learned that merely putting a fence up accomplished nothing without Infantry there to stop people from passing it. This truth is lost on those who scream build the wall.

Build the wall. Build it twenty feet tall. People will go over it with a twenty two foot ladder. Obstacles like that are designed to delay, or deter, the enemy. But what return do you get from the expense? The walls in place already are bypassed easily. Drug Smugglers build ramps to the top of the wall, and then down the other side, and literally drive their product into the States.

So beyond the trillions of dollars needed to build the wall, you would have to dedicate the entirety of the Military to try and defend it. To try and make it leak proof. And that, that would be a waste of money beyond anything you can imagine.

So for me, it is irrational to demand a wall, because I know what is already happening to the existing obstacles, and what will certainly happen in the future. Whole Corps of army units would be tied up trying to catch those who sneak through.

If you think we have difficulty recruiting and retaining soldiers now, imagine if that is all they do once they finish basic. Stand around in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California trying to stop people from sneaking in. Desertions would be high, retention would be almost nil. The mind numbing nature of the service would drive people to leave.

And the people would still come.

So for me it is irrational to even argue that makes sense. It would be the mother of all boondoggles.

Now, to supporting Ukraine. I am obviously a supporter of Ukrainian Independence. I am a supporter of freedom for all peoples. I am also a student of History. I believe the best way to stop the madmen of the future is to learn from the mistakes of yesterday.

It is incredibly cheap to support Ukraine today, and it would be unbelievably expensive to fight Russia in a decade. If Russia can be stopped now, and pushed back to their own borders, we have a good chance of avoiding a full fledged outright war in the not too distant future. To me, it is Rational.

Because I know what we are sending the Ukrainian army is stuff they need, and we don’t. We sent hundreds of MRAP vehicles. We don’t want, or need those anymore. They were designed and built for a single situation, the environments we found in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not suited for our Army in any other situation. They are too heavy to efficiently move by Air. They are too tall to be useful in a force on force battle, you know with tanks and such, they are too slow to keep up with even a moderate speed of advance behind our own tanks. It is why they are being replaced with a number of newer vehicles. It is why we left so many behind.

It costs us little to send those over. Transportation costs primarily. Putting them on a ship and then convoying them to the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians can then use them for a number of things, but I wouldn’t suggest the front where tank rounds and missiles are being fired. But in the rear, to shuffle people, right behind the front, yeah. They would do OK. They should be fine against shrapnel and near misses from artillery.

So what does it cost us to send the stuff we don’t want? We still have to show the cost of the item, the “relative value” today. But that value is essentially Nil in real life.

What we are sending is stuff we want and need tested in real battle. Missiles and artillery. Stuff we have tested in non battle and found it good. But now we are finding out the truth. It is very effective, but could be better. The British Anti Tank Missile is lighter, cheaper, and just as effective while being easier to use. I’m sure we’ll be copying or taking a few pages from them. We’ve done that many many times.

Additionally we help stop a madman before he becomes a true world threat. Yes, we risk nuclear war. But we would risk that anyway if we didn’t stop Putin in Ukraine. Because eventually the Russians would make a demand we were unwilling to give in to, and then the war would begin, with us having to cover a lot more territory to get to Russia, and with the risk of nuclear weapons even higher.

It is better, cheaper, and far safer to do this now, before it gets worse later.