Steve Deace on possible WW3 draft over Ukraine

18,134 Views | 326 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Space-Tech
pagerman @ work
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

pagerman @ work said:

Quote:

This ends one of two ways: escalation to US forces getting involved, or peace talks and the Russians and people of Ukraine redrawing the map.
And why is it our job to dictate terms to the Ukrainians? Where do we get off telling other countries how much of their country is acceptable for them to cede to an outside aggressor? They don't get to (at least attempt to) decide that on their own?

We don't have to arm or support them, but we also don't have to mandate their surrender.

And the US is not going to send troops to Ukraine, period. If we were going to, it would have happened already when the conventional wisdom was that Ukraine had no chance against the Russian invasion.

The point of supporting Ukraine indirectly with arms is so that hopefully we don't have to support Latvia, Lithuania and/or Estonia directly with US troops. And FYI, those countries have sizable ethnic Russian minorities that I am sure Moscow feels would be safer under the wing of mother Russia. And they are access points into the heart of Russia. And they are NATO members and thus (in the paranoid Russian mind) direct threats to Russia's very existence.
It wasn't but now that we are involved we need to push for peace talks. If we don't we fight a stagnant war burning through billions.
But we are not involved other than ancillarily. We can cut off aid or we can continue it, but who gives a sh/t if Russians and Ukrainians are killing each other? And again, where do we get off telling Ukraine that they have to cede territory to an invading country? Why do we get to determine that they don't have a right to fight back? And again, that is a separate discussion from supporting them in that effort. Even if we pulled our support I wouldn't support telling them they have to stand down from defending themselves unless that is what they wanted to do.

It's one thing to broker a peace if that is what Ukraine wants, it is entirely different to impose a deal when one side (particularly the invaded side) wants to continue the fight.

And why are these billions any more important than the $5,900 billion we spend on other sh/t?
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
When Russia attacked Ukraine, we were providing arms and had no troops or troops of a country we are bound by treaty to protect in combat. A year later, that's still the case. But omg the eScaLaTiOn.

Neat debate strategy there btw. Repeat Russian talking point. When someone finally counters, call them a liar. Good stuff.
pagerman @ work
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.
Would it still be idiotic if it was Trump's foreign policy?
Tom Kazansky 2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
pagerman @ work said:

Quote:

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.
Would it still be idiotic if it was Trump's foreign policy?
In your fairy tale hypothetical ? If trump did exactly what biden has done? Yes.
Tom Kazansky 2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

When Russia attacked Ukraine, we were providing arms and had no troops or troops of a country we are bound by treaty to protect in combat. A year later, that's still the case. But omg the eScaLaTiOn.

Neat debate strategy there btw. Repeat Russian talking point. When someone finally counters, call them a liar. Good stuff.

Is sending more equipment and billions more than what was originally promised escalation or not?

You are trying to redefine an operative word (escalation) here to make your original position not look foolish. You are in over your skis.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

pagerman @ work said:

Quote:

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.
Would it still be idiotic if it was Trump's foreign policy?
In your fairy tale hypothetical ? If trump did exactly what biden has done? Yes.
Trump sent military weaponry to Ukraine when he was President

after condemning Obama for not doing so.

Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Any war that isn't won by one side in short order will, by definition, "escalate". Each side will continually ramp up efforts, to include employing the aid of allies, in an effort to successfully achieve their objectives as time progresses and victory proves elusive.

The most significant difference of opinion between the respective "sides" appears to be whether a rapid overtaking and absorption of Ukraine by Russia has less severe long term negative implications than the attempt to prevent Russia from achieving their objective.

There seems to be, at the very heart of this argument, a fundamental disagreement as to what is in the best long term interests of the United States and the implications of Russian victory vs Russian failure.
Tom Kazansky 2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

pagerman @ work said:

Quote:

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.
Would it still be idiotic if it was Trump's foreign policy?
In your fairy tale hypothetical ? If trump did exactly what biden has done? Yes.
Trump sent military weaponry to Ukraine when he was President

after condemning Obama for not doing so.



Shocking black-and-white explanation again.

One tactical move doesn't make their foreign policy the same. Hope that helps.

Trump prevented Russia from ever making a move on Ukraine.
pagerman @ work
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

GAC06 said:

When Russia attacked Ukraine, we were providing arms and had no troops or troops of a country we are bound by treaty to protect in combat. A year later, that's still the case. But omg the eScaLaTiOn.

Neat debate strategy there btw. Repeat Russian talking point. When someone finally counters, call them a liar. Good stuff.

Is sending more equipment and billions more than what was originally promised escalation or not?

You are trying to redefine an operative word (escalation) here to make your original position not look foolish. You are in over your skis.
What are you claiming has escalated? The war in general, US contributions to Ukraine?

In order to answer your question to your satisfaction there needs to be a definition of "escalation" that is agreed upon.
Tom Kazansky 2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rossticus said:

Any war that isn't won by one side in short order will, by definition, "escalate". The most significant difference of opinion between the respective "sides" appears to be whether a rapid overtaking and absorption of Ukraine by Russia has less severe long term negative implications than the attempt to prevent Russia from achieving their objective.
In the early onsets of this conflict, this is exactly what the anti-involvement people said and we were met with scorn and called Ivans.

You are making my point here.
Tom Kazansky 2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
pagerman @ work said:

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

GAC06 said:

When Russia attacked Ukraine, we were providing arms and had no troops or troops of a country we are bound by treaty to protect in combat. A year later, that's still the case. But omg the eScaLaTiOn.

Neat debate strategy there btw. Repeat Russian talking point. When someone finally counters, call them a liar. Good stuff.

Is sending more equipment and billions more than what was originally promised escalation or not?

You are trying to redefine an operative word (escalation) here to make your original position not look foolish. You are in over your skis.
What are you claiming has escalated? The war in general, US contributions to Ukraine?

In order to answer your question to your satisfaction there needs to be a definition of "escalation" that is agreed upon.

I had the definition and explained that in my original post on page one and the Uke fanbois resorted to semantics. I quoted again above for everyone to see.
Beast of Burden
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jwoodmd said:

Beast of Burden said:

Shot:

jwoodmd said:

Beast of Burden said:

jwoodmd said:

Beast of Burden said:

shiftyandquick said:

How old are you pro-Russia MAGA guys? Old enough to be alive while Ronald Reagan was president?


Shiftyandslow, have you ever considered trying to use some honesty during your "arguments"?
You didn't answer his question, comrade Russian bot


jwood, I always get a good chuckle when you try and engage on f16. It's usually pretty entertaining to watch until you inevitably disappear again. What question are you referring to?
Weird and evasive response coming from a ten day old account. Answer shinty's question!


Chaser:

jwoodmd said:

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

jwoodmd said:

Beast of Burden said:

shiftyandquick said:

How old are you pro-Russia MAGA guys? Old enough to be alive while Ronald Reagan was president?


Shiftyandslow, have you ever considered trying to use some honesty during your "arguments"?
You didn't answer his question, comrade Russian bot

Care to answer my question on escalation you ingord three times yesterday?
Watch your mouth

Did it fly over your head, English is not your native language, or did you just "ingord" the sarcasm?


I noticed you used sarcasm regarding an obvious thumb slip typo while typing in order to avoid his question. Keep up.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Our position hasn't changed. Counter Russian aggression for a fraction of our annual defense budget, unify NATO, and position ourselves as a major source of Europe's energy. We're still doing exactly that. Russia (and their apologists and fanboys) like to cry about escalation but they know they don't want to see real escalation, which is a war with NATO.
Tom Kazansky 2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

Our position hasn't changed. Counter Russian aggression for a fraction of our annual defense budget, unify NATO, and position ourselves as a major source of Europe's energy. We're still doing exactly that. Russia (and their apologists and fanboys) like to cry about escalation but they know they don't want to see real escalation, which is a war with NATO.
No ***** That was a big reason for us to say this needs to be over right away. Not piling on more equipment and money to keep this going longer.

I think we all want to avoid the US troops in-country escalation.

Edit: I know your position hasn't changed despite the geopolitical environment, cost, death toll, strategic position, Russian economy, and our economy all dynamically changing in the past year. It is why many people are coming around to think your position is completely ****ed in the head.
pagerman @ work
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

LMCane said:

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

pagerman @ work said:

Quote:

while defending brandon's idiotic foreign policy.
Would it still be idiotic if it was Trump's foreign policy?
In your fairy tale hypothetical ? If trump did exactly what biden has done? Yes.
Trump sent military weaponry to Ukraine when he was President

after condemning Obama for not doing so.



Shocking black-and-white explanation again.

One tactical move doesn't make their foreign policy the same. Hope that helps.

Trump prevented Russia from ever making a move on Ukraine.
Not necessarily.

Most of this seems to have been precipitated by Ukraine asking Biden to admit Ukraine into NATO in January of 2021, which, as a sovereign country they have a right to do. Russia had made clear to the West that it did not want Ukraine in NATO. Trump never faced this situation. He was clearly on friendly terms with Zelenskiy however.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It can be over whenever Russia wants it to be over. They're still attacking though so it looks like they still need more convincing and dying.
Tom Kazansky 2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

It can be over whenever Russia wants it to be over. They're still attacking though so it looks like they still need more convincing and dying.

Totally agree. Why isn't brandon and his party of stooges suing for peace talks?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

nortex97 said:

GAC06 said:

You've repeated the same stupid question like five times. People aren't avoiding it because it's some kind of tough question, they're avoiding it because it's silly. Russia invaded. Our position is to respect and ensure Ukraine's territorial integrity. Providing arms to counter Russia's invasion isn't escalation, it's consistency. Russia likes to talk about all the escalation and provocations they've faced since their invasion began so I guess I see where you're getting that talking point.
Why aren't we going to free Tibet then, about which I've seen bumper stickers for 30+ years? Or Hong Kong? Or Gambia, or Somalia, or Ethiopia? When do we re-take South Vietnam for the good people there? And the Kurds? Free Cyprus/Constantinople? A bunch of Okinawans are still sick of Japanese oppression.


Perhaps we care more about Europe than Africa or ancient events.

Oh and of course this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
What? Joe Biden is a racist again? I thought he was half black, half puerto rican, and half Polish. That's why we don't care about Hong Kong? Personally, I think it has more to do with the Biden clan financial ties to the CCP, but you do you.

But of course, the sacred Budapest Memorandum. Duh, how silly of me. What about when we abandoned the Minsk protocol and subsequent Minsk II agreement unilaterally in November 2021, does that matter?

My point, other than derisive mockery of your citation of the Budapest memo as a proof source, is that this is really just about the donbas region of Ukraine (or the eastern third, whatever 'oblasts' are involved). It's been indefensible for at least 500 years, probably more, which is why it was never really permanently settled with large cities until the 1800's. Risking major war/economic catastrophe over the equivalent of the cultural heritage/possessions of Muleshoe Texas is absurd.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Perhaps Russia doesn't want it to be over. Perhaps they want a breakthrough to negotiate from a better position. Perhaps we want the same thing. Perhaps they'll be more amenable when they're actually facing western armor and precision strikes are hitting them 50+ miles behind the lines.
pagerman @ work
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

GAC06 said:

It can be over whenever Russia wants it to be over. They're still attacking though so it looks like they still need more convincing and dying.

Totally agree. Why isn't brandon and his party of stooges suing for peace talks?
It's not our place to tell Ukraine that they have to cede territory to Russian or that they can't defend themselves.
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If we send US troops to Ukraine that were drafted, will they have access to our bio-weapons labs in Ukraine?

Let's add this to the list regardless:
Coup, NATO, corruption, provocation, bio-weapons labs, Nazis, WWIII, can't afford it, Satan, LBGQT, actor, and the US instituting a draft and your kids will die.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

Rossticus said:

Any war that isn't won by one side in short order will, by definition, "escalate". The most significant difference of opinion between the respective "sides" appears to be whether a rapid overtaking and absorption of Ukraine by Russia has less severe long term negative implications than the attempt to prevent Russia from achieving their objective.
In the early onsets of this conflict, this is exactly what the anti-involvement people said and we were met with scorn and called Ivans.

You are making my point here.


From the standpoint of the side that agrees with the hard non-escalatory stance, yes. But, the ultimate difference of opinion between the two existent points of view is what the most likely implications are after the fact.

One side believes that the greatest potential danger stems from the conflict itself, with less significant negative repercussions stemming from an easy success by the aggressor, and thusly favors a quick end result in Russia's favor.

The other side believes there to be less danger of spillover, with the greater concern being a perceived emboldening of Russia and China toward future conquests (and the resultant large scale destabilization and potential U.S. involvement) if easy large scale strategic gains are allowed to go unchecked in violation of international law and order.

Like I said, there's a clear divergence in philosophy between the two camps, with both (IMO) having legitimate concerns. Unfortunately those concerns are predicated largely on unknowns and hypotheticals, which is why dialogue inevitably breaks down, with each side confident in their assessment over that of the other.
jwoodmd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Beast of Burden said:

jwoodmd said:

Beast of Burden said:

Shot:

jwoodmd said:

Beast of Burden said:

jwoodmd said:

Beast of Burden said:

shiftyandquick said:

How old are you pro-Russia MAGA guys? Old enough to be alive while Ronald Reagan was president?


Shiftyandslow, have you ever considered trying to use some honesty during your "arguments"?
You didn't answer his question, comrade Russian bot


jwood, I always get a good chuckle when you try and engage on f16. It's usually pretty entertaining to watch until you inevitably disappear again. What question are you referring to?
Weird and evasive response coming from a ten day old account. Answer shinty's question!


Chaser:

jwoodmd said:

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

jwoodmd said:

Beast of Burden said:

shiftyandquick said:

How old are you pro-Russia MAGA guys? Old enough to be alive while Ronald Reagan was president?


Shiftyandslow, have you ever considered trying to use some honesty during your "arguments"?
You didn't answer his question, comrade Russian bot

Care to answer my question on escalation you ingord three times yesterday?
Watch your mouth

Did it fly over your head, English is not your native language, or did you just "ingord" the sarcasm?


I noticed you used sarcasm regarding an obvious thumb slip typo while typing in order to avoid his question. Keep up.
Ok, hedge
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did you really just post a link to Putin unilaterally ending the Minsk agreements as proof of us unilaterally ending them?
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

GAC06 said:

Our position hasn't changed. Counter Russian aggression for a fraction of our annual defense budget, unify NATO, and position ourselves as a major source of Europe's energy. We're still doing exactly that. Russia (and their apologists and fanboys) like to cry about escalation but they know they don't want to see real escalation, which is a war with NATO.
No ***** That was a big reason for us to say this needs to be over right away. Not piling on more equipment and money to keep this going longer.

I think we all want to avoid the US troops in-country escalation.

Edit: I know your position hasn't changed despite the geopolitical environment, cost, death toll, strategic position, Russian economy, and our economy all dynamically changing in the past year. It is why many people are coming around to think your position is completely ****ed in the head.


Absent an attack by Russia on a NATO country there is a zero percent chance that we have troops fighting there. Any "omg escalation" histrionics are completely pointless when it's just the US sending higher levels of equipment.

Unless you are still pretending that Biden was only talking about tanks (and not tanks with US soldiers driving them) last year, in which case you're just arguing intellectually dishonest points.
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

Our position hasn't changed. Counter Russian aggression for a fraction of our annual defense budget, unify NATO, and position ourselves as a major source of Europe's energy. We're still doing exactly that. Russia (and their apologists and fanboys) like to cry about escalation but they know they don't want to see real escalation, which is a war with NATO.
Question.

Is it really necessary to call anyone that may question our level of contribution to Ukraine, or even <gasp> not support US involvement at all, a Putin fanboy or Russian apologist?

Gotta say, this has really started to irk me. It's such a leftist way to argue and frankly pretty chicken sh**.

We can have conflicting thoughts about this situation, even complete disagreement and it does not equate to being pro Russia and or a fan of Putin. Personally, I have been mostly in agreement of our support but definitely have some gripes and like DeSantis, we need a much more defined objective here than endless funding of one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. And you won't find someone that despises Putin or Russia in general more than I do.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

GAC06 said:

It can be over whenever Russia wants it to be over. They're still attacking though so it looks like they still need more convincing and dying.

Totally agree. Why isn't brandon and his party of stooges suing for peace talks?


Do you think that Russia would accept less than the total territory that they've officially recognized as annexed in their constitution in order to end the conflict and escape with a sliver of eastern Ukraine?

What do you think would be a reasonable compromise for Ukraine that wouldn't appreciably impact their economic autonomy, and wouldn't give Russia a sufficient strategic advantage such that they'd be tempted to try and take another chunk at some future date?

Would you be willing to allow for the US or other NATO countries to provide solid security guarantees against future Russian aggression in order to convince Ukraine of the viability of a compromise, knowing that if Russia disregarded the truce it would necessarily result in much more direct US involvement?

I think that to have talks there has to be some modicum of agreement or willingness to compromise with regard to the above questions. If either Russia or Ukraine still feel that they can achieve more without compromise then you can't get people to the table.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with you and my comment wasn't intended to apply to everyone against the war although I see how it can be taken that way. I was responding to someone generalizing with "Uke fanbois" "stooges" "war hawks" and "idiots" among other things so I got a little drawn in although mostly in humor.

Interestingly enough, our friend Iceman recently told me I should stop saying mean things about Trump because it will hurt republicans. I guess this is different.
aginresearch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Urban Ag I respect you and GAC06 as posters and I think people should be way more respectful towards one another on this board. The underhanded jabs and phrasing towards people who generally agree on most political issues and are fellow Aggies is a bit disturbing and I agree that it smacks of more emotion based rather than logical argument.

However, GAC06 is not the only one making these remarks and I respectfully ask that you also ask others to remain civil towards people like GAC06 too.

Thanks again for your attempt to bring a more civil tone to our debates.

Thanks and Gig 'em!
Tom Kazansky 2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rossticus said:

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

GAC06 said:

It can be over whenever Russia wants it to be over. They're still attacking though so it looks like they still need more convincing and dying.

Totally agree. Why isn't brandon and his party of stooges suing for peace talks?


Do you think that Russia would accept less than the total territory that they've officially recognized as annexed in their constitution in order to end the conflict and escape with a sliver of eastern Ukraine?


Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.

Quote:

What do you think would be a reasonable compromise for Ukraine that wouldn't appreciably impact their economic autonomy, and wouldn't give Russia a sufficient strategic advantage such that they'd be tempted to try and take another chunk at some future date?
There is no winning compromise for Zelensky and the oligarchs in charge currently in Ukraine. Except to keep this thing going with massive funds promised from the US.
agwrestler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Street Fighter said:

MouthBQ98 said:

NOBODY wants to send forces to Ukraine. It's not happening, as long as Russia doesn't go full stupid and they stay in their lane and don't attack a NATO member.

I have money down on a NATO member attacking Russia.


Did you cash out already? We blew up their pipeline.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:


Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.




Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.

Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.

This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".

To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?

TRADUCTOR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lot of posters under the spell of 'dark brandon'

I say FJB

MAGA
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Let's be honest, if we cut Ukraine loose tomorrow most of the "not another dime" folks would be spiking the football about how weak and fickle Brandon is.
Psycho Bunny
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GAC06 said:

Let's be honest, if we cut Ukraine loose tomorrow most of the "not another dime" folks would be spiking the football about how weak and fickle Brandon is.
Actually... if poopy pants stopped all money going to Ukraine, I for one would rejoice.

From day one, I've been against helping Ukraine, the United States should have never gotten involved.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.