Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Am I missing some kind of push to send troops to Ukraine? Why is this even a talking point?

---

You can't be that naiive

---

Feel free to provide any information to the contrary.

---

Escalation is real in this conflict. Just like when some of us rolled our eyes when Ukraine fanbois said this war was going to be a bargain when the original 40-some-odd billion was budgeted for Ukraine.

Some of us see where this is logically headed, and others want to talk tackti-cool stuff on the ukraine thread and pound their chest and pretend Biden is Reagan.

Hope that helps. for the record, we already have troops over there.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Am I missing some kind of push to send troops to Ukraine? Why is this even a talking point?

---

You can't be that naiive

---

Feel free to provide any information to the contrary.

---

See above.

---

We have special forces troops in at least a couple dozen of countries at any given time, most of which no one has any idea about, so this is not surprising and nowhere close to what you implied, but you already know that.

We will still never have a force in the ground in Ukraine without Putin doing something that causes that.

We have had multiple kinetic attacks against and from Russia for the last year. There is no doubt now.

We are in a de facto undeclared war.

I have a friend who works the boom on a mid-air refueling tanker for a NATO ally. He has NEVER been so busy refueling US and other NATO jets in the area. Everything - F16, F15, F22, F18, F18-S, F117, B2, B1, F35, A10, Mirage, and a couple of classified aircraft in US/NATO arsenal.

And we are pretending we are not taking direct action in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus? Believable......

We don't have to pretend we aren't taking direct action.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Am I missing some kind of push to send troops to Ukraine? Why is this even a talking point?

---

You can't be that naiive

---

Feel free to provide any information to the contrary.

---

See above.

---

We have special forces troops in at least a couple dozen of countries at any given time, most of which no one has any idea about, so this is not surprising and nowhere close to what you implied, but you already know that.

We will still never have a force in the ground in Ukraine without Putin doing something that causes that.

---

I said just that in this thread and was shouted down by people saying they weren't involved with actual combat. Latest leak determines that was foolish for Ukrainian conflict defenders to say.

Read for yourself.

Teslag said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Am I missing some kind of push to send troops to Ukraine? Why is this even a talking point?

---

You can't be that naiive

---

Feel free to provide any information to the contrary.

---

Escalation is real in this conflict. Just like when some of us rolled our eyes when Ukraine fanbois said this war was going to be a bargain when the original 40-some-odd billion was budgeted for Ukraine.

Some of us see where this is logically headed, and others want to talk tackti-cool stuff on the ukraine thread and pound their chest and pretend Biden is Reagan.

Hope that helps. for the record, we already have troops over there.

---

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/02/posts-misquote-bidens-year-old-remarks-on-tanks-for-ukraine

---

Your fact check discredits nothing. Typical yellow journo nonsense.

He said both things in the meme. Only operative words left out is by American pilots and crews.

When is he going to go back on that one?

---

There's a massive difference in sending tanks and sending tanks driven by American soldiers (what he was referencing). But you already knew that.

---

I don't think he does

---

Here it is. We are now sending tanks and offensive equipment, and there are US servicemen in Ukraine. Those are facts.

Not sure why you guys are going out and defending brandon's escalation when it's pretty easy to verify.

Can't wait to once again say I told you so when it escalated more and we offer more blank checks to this ridiculous conflict.

---

Oh wow, you actually are this dense. Did you keep listening for the part where he says "with American pilots and crews"?

---

He conveniently left that part out. He also thinks American weapons inspectors are "troops on the ground".

---

We have troops at the front lines participating in combat and training combatants.

GAC06 said:

---

With drones it's not hard to call in artillery, and the Ukrainians know what they're doing. It would be colossally stupid as well as unnecessary to have US personnel anywhere near combat.

---

How do you guys talk so confidently back then and now that your dead ass wrong you just shoo it away.

At leas admit you had no idea what you were talking about.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Am I missing some kind of push to send troops to Ukraine? Why is this even a talking point?

---

You can't be that naiive

---

Feel free to provide any information to the contrary.

---

See above.

---

We have special forces troops in at least a couple dozen of countries at any given time, most of which no one has any idea about, so this is not surprising and nowhere close to what you implied, but you already know that.

We will still never have a force in the ground in Ukraine without Putin doing something that causes that.

---

Shhhhh, he won't understand this.

If you support any US involvement in the Ukraine, you are easily brainwashed by social media (I.e., US intelligence)

Teslag said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Am I missing some kind of push to send troops to Ukraine? Why is this even a talking point?

---

You can't be that naiive

---

Feel free to provide any information to the contrary.

---

See above.

---

We have special forces troops in at least a couple dozen of countries at any given time, most of which no one has any idea about, so this is not surprising and nowhere close to what you implied, but you already know that.

We will still never have a force in the ground in Ukraine without Putin doing something that causes that.

---

Shhhhh, he won't understand this.

---

I said that we did on this very thread and all of you shouted me down explaining that our special forces were hundreds of miles from combat. Not only are they not "hundreds of miles away" but they are participating.

Hope that helps.

Where did we say that special forces operatives were hundreds of miles from combat?

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

With drones it's not hard to call in artillery, and the Ukrainians know what they're doing. It would be colossally stupid as well as unnecessary to have US personnel anywhere near combat.

---

And this admin wouldn't do anything colossally stupid, right? Right?

---

Unfortunately they are.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Am I missing some kind of push to send troops to Ukraine? Why is this even a talking point?

---

You can't be that naiive

---

Feel free to provide any information to the contrary.

---

See above.

---

We have special forces troops in at least a couple dozen of countries at any given time, most of which no one has any idea about, so this is not surprising and nowhere close to what you implied, but you already know that.

We will still never have a force in the ground in Ukraine without Putin doing something that causes that.

---

I said just that in this thread and was shouted down by people saying they weren't involved with actual combat. Latest leak determines that was foolish for Ukrainian conflict defenders to say.

Read for yourself.

---

Do you still think "American tanks" and "American tanks driven by American soldiers" are the same thing?

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

Definitely escalated, but we're still miles away from deploying troops to conduct combat operations.

I'm somewhat in favor of our actions in Ukraine. Until now, this has been a textbook example of offshore balancing in which we support one state to reduce the power of a rival. Even accounting for the "fraud tax" (yes, the Ukrainian government is corrupt and yes some of our support has been embezzled or wasted or who knows what else), it's still been a pretty good deal. We haven't spent that much relative to our annual defense budget and in return the Russian military has suffered ~200k casualties (estimated 50-60k dead) and has lost staggering amounts of equipment. So, its ability to project power and resist our interests across the world has been heavily damaged.

That said I'm extremely nervous about China escalating this thing. If they begin sending Russia weapons and material as we suspect they will, the FUBAR potential of this thing increases exponentially. I do not trust Biden's administration to navigate that successfully (understatement of the year). When you look at his record, his success so far with Ukraine looks more like luck than business as usual. I am terrified that Afghanistan Biden will make his return.

---

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.

---

No troops or troops of a country bound to protect huh?

UK, France, and US operators near the front line say that is total bull*****

We had US operators in Chechnya and Georgia too. You aren't this naive.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

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.

---

US and its allies have troops fighting there and have for a while. You were wrong.

Near!!!!!

Are you seriously equating SOCOM or JSOC assets to "troops"?


Please say yes.

Teslag said:

---

Are you seriously equating SOCOM or JSOC assets to "troops"?


Please say yes.

---

He doesn't know the difference between "tanks" and "tanks driven by American troops", so I'm assuming the answer is yes.

Teslag said:

---

Are you seriously equating SOCOM or JSOC assets to "troops"?


Please say yes.

---

I have always used the word operators. Hope that helps. Please tell me you don't consider those operators.

Please say yes.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you seriously equating SOCOM or JSOC assets to "troops"?


Please say yes.

---

He doesn't know the difference between "tanks" and "tanks driven by American troops", so I'm assuming the answer is yes.

---

The bumps havent been kind to you. Why don't you sit this one out?

Operator, oh, could you help me place this call?
See the number on the matchbook is old and faded
She's living in L.A.
With my best old ex-friend, Ray
Guy, she said she knew well, and sometimes hated

Artorias said:

---

Unless there is a war where the US homeland is being directly attacked/invaded, my son will never/ever be drafted. Not sending my son to die in some other **** country, no matter how "critical" or "strategic" or "freedom-needing" the other country is.

Come at me.

---

100% agree.

Teslag said:

---

Are you seriously equating SOCOM or JSOC assets to "troops"?


Please say yes.

---

Here was another chilling admission you should know about before you go spouting off and boasting about cordwood:

Quote:

---

Leaked docs: Ukrainian killed in action outnumber Russians 4:1
Perhaps the most notable piece of information contained in the leaked documents relates to military death tolls, with Ukrainian and Russian losses estimated at about a 4:1 ratio. According to one document, 71,500 Ukrainian troops have been killed in action.
That figure is close to the 100,000 KIA's cited by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in a November 2022 speech, before her comments were retracted. It also tracks closely with statements by one of Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelensky's top advisers, Mykhailo Podolyak, who told the BBC in June of last year that Ukraine was losing between 100 and 200 soldiers per day (200 deaths per day over the course of 370 days between the launch of Russia's military operation and the date of the documents would total 74,000.)

---

Yawn.

Quote:

---

The Times writes, "Military analysts said the documents appear to have been modified in certain parts from their original format, overstating American estimates of Ukrainian war dead and understating estimates of Russian troops killed. The modifications could point to an effort of disinformation by Moscow, the analysts said… The analysts warned that documents released by Russian sources could be selectively altered to present the Kremlin's disinformation."

---

GAC06 said:

---

Yawn.

Quote:

---

The Times writes, "Military analysts said the documents appear to have been modified in certain parts from their original format, overstating American estimates of Ukrainian war dead and understating estimates of Russian troops killed. The modifications could point to an effort of disinformation by Moscow, the analysts said… The analysts warned that documents released by Russian sources could be selectively altered to present the Kremlin's disinformation."

---

---

I knew this was coming. As if any source you claim on the tacticool thread is better.

Go ahead and admit nothing different from you bold claims from just a few months ago.

I expected as much. Stick to your guns. Let's see how deep this goes.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you seriously equating SOCOM or JSOC assets to "troops"?


Please say yes.

---

I have always used the word operators. Hope that helps. Please tell me you don't consider those operators.

Please say yes.

---

I'm sure you would use that term.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you seriously equating SOCOM or JSOC assets to "troops"?


Please say yes.

---

He doesn't know the difference between "tanks" and "tanks driven by American troops", so I'm assuming the answer is yes.

---

Exactly.

You believe one document that says the Ukrainians have fired almost 10,000 GMLR's and a million 155 rds but also believe the Russians lost 16,000 men? I guess they miss a LOT.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you seriously equating SOCOM or JSOC assets to "troops"?


Please say yes.

---

He doesn't know the difference between "tanks" and "tanks driven by American troops", so I'm assuming the answer is yes.

---

The bumps havent been kind to you. Why don't you sit this one out?

---

Weird, you seemed to have missed the question. Here, I'll add it again:

Quote:

---

Do you still think "American tanks" and "American tanks driven by American soldiers" are the same thing?

---

GAC06 said:

---

You believe one document that says the Ukrainians have fired almost 10,000 GMLR's and a million 155 rds but also believe the Russians lost 16,000 men? I guess they miss a LOT.

---

Shhhh he's rolling

This is magical. I cant wait for you guys to explain away point blank everything you professed to this board.

About what I expected.

GAC06 said:

---

You believe one document that says the Ukrainians have fired almost 10,000 GMLR's and a million 155 rds but also believe the Russians lost 16,000 men? I guess they miss a LOT.

---

And?

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

This is magical. I cant wait for you guys to explain away point blank everything you professed to this board.

About what I expected.

---

We're still waiting for you to explain this, seems like a pretty simple question.

Quote:

---

Do you still think "American tanks" and "American tanks driven by American soldiers" are the same thing?

---