Thread: The Ukraine Situation

Originally Posted by BobH

No, from my pov it just shows that the use of drones should be a wakeup call to all militaries that in future conflicts drones will be a major concern. In the years that they have been in use in the Ukraine and other places they have grown ever more troublesome and counter measures to them ever more expensive.

Russia is well used to the tactic of a meat grinder war with high casualties and limited gains. This was true in WWII and continues today under Putin. This meat grinder mentality has not generally been the choice in the west. That really leaves only one choice if you don't want Russia to have what they want. If you want to cut the money train now, there in all probability be an even more expensive money train to pay in the future. It is basically a no-win situation.

Bob

Well that last line begs the question

Why did the West jump in, we do know know the money is gone much of it without accounting, this is why I put the costs of weapons systems up above..

"Not one foot East"

Yea, you guys are consistent alright. You blame us (There's that old transference again) and then just parrot the same right wing conspiracies that have been rejected by courts over and over.

We live in a country where the Napoleonic Code doesn't apply. The entity making the allegations has the burden of proving them. You don't get to make baseless allegations and then say "prove I'm not the right one". So far all we have is claims and no evidence to stand any test. But then again what do you expect when you get your News from some outfit already sued and paid millions for outright lies and fabrications or what you saw on the web probably authored by some 300lb guy in his parents basement laughing his as* off.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Yea, you guys are consistent alright. You blame us (There's that old transference again) and then just parrot the same right wing conspiracies that have been rejected by courts over and over.

We live in a country where the Napoleonic Code doesn't apply. The entity making the allegations has the burden of proving them. You don't get to make baseless allegations and then say "prove I'm not the right one". So far all we have is claims and no evidence to stand any test. But then again what do you expect when you get your News from some outfit already sued and paid millions for outright lies and fabrications or what you saw on the web probably authored by some 300lb guy in his parents basement laughing his as* off.

But no opinions on Ukraine

Anyone see the video of Macron and a couple of pooftas on the plane after meeting with Zelensky?
I watched several times. Check the items on the table and the slights of hand....Knowing glances.
Seems Mr Z has an affinity.... Curious stuff

Originally Posted by sharptonn

Anyone see the video of Macron and a couple of pooftas on the plane after meeting with Zelensky?
I watched several times. Check the items on the table and the slights of hand....Knowing glances.
Seems Mr Z has an affinity.... Curious stuff

No

Is it on Youtube ???

Oh brother...

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Yea, you guys are consistent alright. You blame us (There's that old transference again) and then just parrot the same right wing conspiracies that have been rejected by courts over and over.

We live in a country where the Napoleonic Code doesn't apply. The entity making the allegations has the burden of proving them. You don't get to make baseless allegations and then say "prove I'm not the right one". So far all we have is claims and no evidence to stand any test. But then again what do you expect when you get your News from some outfit already sued and paid millions for outright lies and fabrications or what you saw on the web probably authored by some 300lb guy in his parents basement laughing his as* off.

Now I am beginning to understand how Bill Murray's character felt in that movie Groundhog Day. (Heavy sigh)

Appeal to ignorance fallacy huh? That only applies in a court of law which we are NOT in. Even if we were it would only count as to what can be considered evidence. Arguments to raise doubt and make the opposition prove its case are permitted, but in a rhetorical debate it does not even apply.

I'm getting really weary with this so I'm just going to let the tu quoque in that statement go. But...

ONCE AGAIN see below

Originally Posted by PaulFLUS

...Aside from that, why shouldn't Republicans doubt the integrity of the Dems...oh, sorry..."Non Republicans" especially since the evidence shows they in spite of what has been said here, have been the ones shown to have interfered with or tried to unfairly influence elections. See my earlier link to the Wallstreet Journal article (and there are others) about how Hilary introduced misimformation about Russia collusion trying to steer the election. THAT'S A FACT! You conveniently leave that out. That's clearly wide spread interference with an election and the FBI ran with that BS to interfere with Trump's administration and ultimately influenced mid terms so that's TWO elections in a row that their opposition interfererd with. So, tell me why Republicans should not doubt the findings?

I've even done the work for you.
Please proceed to the following quote

Originally Posted by PaulFLUS

You mean indictments based on investigations led by a corrupt FBI?

I do find it paradoxical that the same party that believes whole heartedly in the Russia collusion lawfare debaucle finds it preposterous that government officials could be guilty of trying to defraud voters then cover it up.

THE LINK BELOW

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...-2016-e341cd7d

Also somewhat amusing that they want to hang Trump but give the clintons a pass. (I better not say that too loud. I might suddenly have a heart attack or decide out of the blue to commit suicide.)

That actually is evidence among other things and why she is not looking sharp in orange jumpsuits is beyond me.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

No

Is it on Youtube ???

On the Train! One on the right snagged the spoon!
https://www.google.com/search?q=macr...6NjCi-G5c,st:0

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well that last line begs the question

Why did the West jump in, we do know know the money is gone much of it without accounting, this is why I put the costs of weapons systems up above..

"Not one foot East"

What is your opinion on that?

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

What is your opinion on that?

Bob

I believe I have stated my opinion quite plainly in the last 3 years, I even admit that when Russia first attacked I was blindly in support of Ukraine but if you were to go back and read, my support lessened

As my mother taught me at an early age 2 wrongs do not make a right!!!
Until Trump won there really wasn't. much push for a resolution, sure a few words but for over 3 years it has been pour money into this..
Only Trump has finally said "Enough"

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I believe I have stated my opinion quite plainly in the last 3 years, I even admit that when Russia first attacked I was blindly in support of Ukraine but if you were to go back and read, my support lessened

As my mother taught me at an early age 2 wrongs do not make a right!!!
Until Trump won there really wasn't. much push for a resolution, sure a few words but for over 3 years it has been pour money into this..
Only Trump has finally said "Enough"

Well, we are back to wait a few years and see what has happened then. When all is said and done, keep in mind that the only time NATO Article 5 was invoked was by the US.

Bob