Ags4DaWin said:

---

Cool. Its ur position that an invading country is 100% responsible for the destruction and death that follows. And its more morally wrong if they weren't attacked first. And the onus is on the invading country to wake the hell up and leave post haste.

Now do the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, 350k dead civilians and the creation of ISIS and say the same thing about the US.........Go on....say the line

---

Ok. So sticking with the false equivalency (along with deflection so that you don't have to blame Russia)...

Focus here, though. This thread is about Russia and Ukraine.

The "US is evil and horribad" thread is over there. We can discuss all the evil and bad things America does on that one.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Cool. Its ur position that an invading country is 100% responsible for the destruction and death that follows. And its more morally wrong if they weren't attacked first. And the onus is on the invading country to wake the hell up and leave post haste.

Now do the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, 350k dead civilians and the creation of ISIS and say the same thing about the US.........Go on....say the line

---

We are at fault 100% for Iraq. Afghanistan not so much. They harbored training facilities for an enemy that directly attacked us. No 9/11, no afghanistan invasion. They ****ed around and found out. Our only problem there was trying nation build in that **** hole. We should have just laid waste and left.

Teslag said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Cool. Its ur position that an invading country is 100% responsible for the destruction and death that follows. And its more morally wrong if they weren't attacked first. And the onus is on the invading country to wake the hell up and leave post haste.

Now do the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, 350k dead civilians and the creation of ISIS and say the same thing about the US.........Go on....say the line

---

We are at fault 100% for Iraq. Afghanistan not so much. They harbored training facilities for an enemy that directly attacked us. No 9/11, no afghanistan invasion. They ****ed around and found out. Our only problem there was trying nation build in that **** hole. We should have just laid waste and left.

---

This is a fair enough assessment...

Also need to add that in neither case, Iraq or Afghanistan, did the US invade with the intent to absorb and assimilate either one of those countries.

I think an argument can be made that our administration at the time had an interest in controlling Iraqi oil assets for sure. I don't think we wanted the land, but we definitely wanted what was underneath it.

nortex97 said:

---

Ok. Accepting arguendo all of that, why does operation Atlantic Resolve warrant an IRR call up/authorization?

Further, why would anyone (per your line of thought) trust that US forces are being deployed primarily in American national security interests as determined by an American executive (Biden) today?

---

3,000 troops from the reserves, with no more than 450 being from the IRR.

"Although it is not clear whether Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin plans to actually deploy these reservists anytime soon, the move suggests that the U.S. military's training mission in Europe, along with the deployment of several new brigades after the invasion, has stretched active-duty forces."

"While the move gives the military's European Command "greater flexibility" to defend the continent, it will not change the actual force levels in Europe, Capt. Bill Speaks, a spokesperson for U.S. European Command, said in a statement."

CALL UP

74OA said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok. Accepting arguendo all of that, why does operation Atlantic Resolve warrant an IRR call up/authorization?

Further, why would anyone (per your line of thought) trust that US forces are being deployed primarily in American national security interests as determined by an American executive (Biden) today?

---

3,000 troops from the reserves, with no more than 450 being from the IRR.

"Although it is not clear whether Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin plans to actually deploy these reservists anytime soon, the move suggests that the U.S. military's training mission in Europe, along with the deployment of several new brigades after the invasion, has stretched active-duty forces."

"While the move gives the military's European Command "greater flexibility" to defend the continent, it will not change the actual force levels in Europe, Capt. Bill Speaks, a spokesperson for U.S. European Command, said in a statement."

CALL UP

---

As you may, or may not be aware, it's opening the TPFDD to IRR call ups, primarily, for NATO/Operation Atlantic Resolve requirements (and subsequent missions in the theater). No sane person thinks this was authorized because they might need a few hundred or not. It…opens the door for further 'adjustments.'

nortex97 said:

---

74OA said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok. Accepting arguendo all of that, why does operation Atlantic Resolve warrant an IRR call up/authorization?

Further, why would anyone (per your line of thought) trust that US forces are being deployed primarily in American national security interests as determined by an American executive (Biden) today?

---

3,000 troops from the reserves, with no more than 450 being from the IRR.

"Although it is not clear whether Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin plans to actually deploy these reservists anytime soon, the move suggests that the U.S. military's training mission in Europe, along with the deployment of several new brigades after the invasion, has stretched active-duty forces."

"While the move gives the military's European Command "greater flexibility" to defend the continent, it will not change the actual force levels in Europe, Capt. Bill Speaks, a spokesperson for U.S. European Command, said in a statement."

CALL UP

---

As you may, or may not be aware, it's opening the TPFDD to IRR call ups, primarily, for NATO/Operation Atlantic Resolve requirements (and subsequent missions in the theater). No sane person thinks this was authorized because they might need a few hundred or not. It…opens the door for further 'adjustments.'

---

The article says that. So what? "No sane person" thinks this is a prelude to WWIII.

74OA said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

74OA said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok. Accepting arguendo all of that, why does operation Atlantic Resolve warrant an IRR call up/authorization?

Further, why would anyone (per your line of thought) trust that US forces are being deployed primarily in American national security interests as determined by an American executive (Biden) today?

---

3,000 troops from the reserves, with no more than 450 being from the IRR.

"Although it is not clear whether Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin plans to actually deploy these reservists anytime soon, the move suggests that the U.S. military's training mission in Europe, along with the deployment of several new brigades after the invasion, has stretched active-duty forces."

"While the move gives the military's European Command "greater flexibility" to defend the continent, it will not change the actual force levels in Europe, Capt. Bill Speaks, a spokesperson for U.S. European Command, said in a statement."

CALL UP

---

As you may, or may not be aware, it's opening the TPFDD to IRR call ups, primarily, for NATO/Operation Atlantic Resolve requirements (and subsequent missions in the theater). No sane person thinks this was authorized because they might need a few hundred or not. It…opens the door for further 'adjustments.'

---

The article says that. So what? "No sane person" thinks this is a prelude to WWIII.

---

Show me what it says about TPFDD. Oh, you mean this part where they blather about the commitment from Lithuania being a 'tall order?'

Quote:

---

The U.S. rushed 20,000 more troops to Europe after Russia's invasion, bringing the total to over 100,000 on the continent. That includes new rotations of 10,000 troops in Poland, which has emerged as a critical hub for supporting and supplying Ukraine.

The potential callups come on the heels of the NATO summit in Lithuania this week, where allies pledged to make 300,000 troops ready for rapid deployment within 30 days or less. It's a tall order for the 31-member alliance whose individual members struggle with equipment and troop readiness after decades of skimping on military funding.

---

Laura Seligman and Paul McLeary's military/pentagon knowledge consists of sitting in the back seat of a Thunderbird one time. Given the frequent criticisms of 'sources' I question their actual knowledge and your ability to show me how this is in fact not a door opener to steadily escalating authorizations and call ups as I stated.

C'mon, this is a glorified twitter post. Do better!

Laura Seligman and Paul McLeary are both long time military correspondents, and in McCleary's case he has been embedded multiple times with SOF units in Afghanistan and was a senior editor for a defense industry magazine. Are they credible? Perhaps, perhaps not. But they are at leas have real names, are real people, and aren't just randos on twitter who share your opinons.

Actually, I'll give you some credit. You used to cite Wargonzo and Donbass Devushkah who turned out to be real live people. One shot in a Russian trench and the other investigated for working for Russian state agencies.

nortex97 said:

---

74OA said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

74OA said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok. Accepting arguendo all of that, why does operation Atlantic Resolve warrant an IRR call up/authorization?

Further, why would anyone (per your line of thought) trust that US forces are being deployed primarily in American national security interests as determined by an American executive (Biden) today?

---

3,000 troops from the reserves, with no more than 450 being from the IRR.

"Although it is not clear whether Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin plans to actually deploy these reservists anytime soon, the move suggests that the U.S. military's training mission in Europe, along with the deployment of several new brigades after the invasion, has stretched active-duty forces."

"While the move gives the military's European Command "greater flexibility" to defend the continent, it will not change the actual force levels in Europe, Capt. Bill Speaks, a spokesperson for U.S. European Command, said in a statement."

CALL UP

---

As you may, or may not be aware, it's opening the TPFDD to IRR call ups, primarily, for NATO/Operation Atlantic Resolve requirements (and subsequent missions in the theater). No sane person thinks this was authorized because they might need a few hundred or not. It…opens the door for further 'adjustments.'

---

The article says that. So what? "No sane person" thinks this is a prelude to WWIII.

---

Show me what it says about TPFDD. Oh, you mean this part where they blather about the commitment from Lithuania being a 'tall order?'

Quote:

---

The U.S. rushed 20,000 more troops to Europe after Russia's invasion, bringing the total to over 100,000 on the continent. That includes new rotations of 10,000 troops in Poland, which has emerged as a critical hub for supporting and supplying Ukraine.

The potential callups come on the heels of the NATO summit in Lithuania this week, where allies pledged to make 300,000 troops ready for rapid deployment within 30 days or less. It's a tall order for the 31-member alliance whose individual members struggle with equipment and troop readiness after decades of skimping on military funding.

---

Laura Seligman and Paul McLeary's military/pentagon knowledge consists of sitting in the back seat of a Thunderbird one time. Given the frequent criticisms of 'sources' I question their actual knowledge and your ability to show me how this is in fact not a door opener to steadily escalating authorizations and call ups as I stated.

C'mon, this is a glorified twitter post. Do better!

---

I was referring to the article saying the call up authority does give EUCOM "greater flexibility" in the future wrt your "further adjustments" comment, and you have no clue what the classified TPFDD contains or doesn't so you can stop trying to bamboozle folks with it. BTW, those two authors are far, far more credible than are you and your hysteria about WWIII.

74OA said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

74OA said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

74OA said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok. Accepting arguendo all of that, why does operation Atlantic Resolve warrant an IRR call up/authorization?

Further, why would anyone (per your line of thought) trust that US forces are being deployed primarily in American national security interests as determined by an American executive (Biden) today?

---

3,000 troops from the reserves, with no more than 450 being from the IRR.

"Although it is not clear whether Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin plans to actually deploy these reservists anytime soon, the move suggests that the U.S. military's training mission in Europe, along with the deployment of several new brigades after the invasion, has stretched active-duty forces."

"While the move gives the military's European Command "greater flexibility" to defend the continent, it will not change the actual force levels in Europe, Capt. Bill Speaks, a spokesperson for U.S. European Command, said in a statement."

CALL UP

---

As you may, or may not be aware, it's opening the TPFDD to IRR call ups, primarily, for NATO/Operation Atlantic Resolve requirements (and subsequent missions in the theater). No sane person thinks this was authorized because they might need a few hundred or not. It…opens the door for further 'adjustments.'

---

The article says that. So what? "No sane person" thinks this is a prelude to WWIII.

---

Show me what it says about TPFDD. Oh, you mean this part where they blather about the commitment from Lithuania being a 'tall order?'

Quote:

---

The U.S. rushed 20,000 more troops to Europe after Russia's invasion, bringing the total to over 100,000 on the continent. That includes new rotations of 10,000 troops in Poland, which has emerged as a critical hub for supporting and supplying Ukraine.

The potential callups come on the heels of the NATO summit in Lithuania this week, where allies pledged to make 300,000 troops ready for rapid deployment within 30 days or less. It's a tall order for the 31-member alliance whose individual members struggle with equipment and troop readiness after decades of skimping on military funding.

---

Laura Seligman and Paul McLeary's military/pentagon knowledge consists of sitting in the back seat of a Thunderbird one time. Given the frequent criticisms of 'sources' I question their actual knowledge and your ability to show me how this is in fact not a door opener to steadily escalating authorizations and call ups as I stated.

C'mon, this is a glorified twitter post. Do better!

---

I was referring to the article saying the call up authority does give EUCOM "greater flexibility" in the future wrt your "further adjustments" comment, and you have no clue what the classified TPFDD contains or doesn't so you can stop trying to bamboozle folks with it. BTW, those two authors are far, far more credible than are you and your hysteria about WWIII.

---

A couple 20-ish politico hacks who never served in the military and support whatever the Democrat-Pentagon line is, are the barometer of authority I've come to expect from the Ukrainian war fan section.

As soon as you catch me trying to claim I have and am sharing classified information please do report it to the DIA and FBI. Many posters not blinded by their faith in Zelensky, our commander in chief, and 'the cause' know exactly what I was referring to. We'll be told it was at a stalemate and hopeless when we are able to handle that news appropriately. Clearly, this ain't 1965, just yet.

Goodness gracious man.

Quote:

---

A couple 20-ish politico hacks who never served in the military and support whatever the Democrat-Pentagon line is, are the barometer of authority I've come to expect from the Ukrainian war fan section.

---

Paul McCleary is 50 years old. and has an almost 25 year career in military journalism, including multiple embedment with deployed combat units.

I mean, he doesn't have a storm trooper icon as his twitter picture so he's definitely got a long way to go to earn your trust.

@Zlatti71 on Twitter seems super trustworthy and informed. We should just run with whatever he says.

The storm trooper twitter may be continuously dead ass wrong but it's another perspective. Plus it's a storm trooper. I mean come on.

Teslag said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Cool. Its ur position that an invading country is 100% responsible for the destruction and death that follows. And its more morally wrong if they weren't attacked first. And the onus is on the invading country to wake the hell up and leave post haste.

Now do the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, 350k dead civilians and the creation of ISIS and say the same thing about the US.........Go on....say the line

---

We are at fault 100% for Iraq. Afghanistan not so much. They harbored training facilities for an enemy that directly attacked us. No 9/11, no afghanistan invasion. They ****ed around and found out. Our only problem there was trying nation build in that **** hole. We should have just laid waste and left.

---

I know we butt heads frequently over this, but I can respect that you are at least reasonably logically consistent with ur positions.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Cool. Its ur position that an invading country is 100% responsible for the destruction and death that follows. And its more morally wrong if they weren't attacked first. And the onus is on the invading country to wake the hell up and leave post haste.

Now do the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, 350k dead civilians and the creation of ISIS and say the same thing about the US.........Go on....say the line

---

Ok. So sticking with the false equivalency (along with deflection so that you don't have to blame Russia)...

Focus here, though. This thread is about Russia and Ukraine.

The "US is evil and horribad" thread is over there. We can discuss all the evil and bad things America does on that one.

---

I never said the US was horribad.

Listen hard.

I am saying that our reasons for invading are pretty much the same reasons Russia invaded.

And it is hypocritical for you or anyone to take one stance on Russia's invasion and another stance on our invasions.

I am making this point to try to show that alot of the "Russia is 100% evil and any attempts at negotiation to resolve this is unprincipled and we need to hamstring our own ecpnomy and military to CRUSH the evil Russians" rhetoric is based on propaganda, emotions, and illogical thinking AND the fact that the MSM and politicians have pulled the wool over ur eyes precisely so they can benefit from war and death and conflict.

If this is a flase equivalency....which you have stated multiple times, then you SHOULD be able to easily explain why. I have made my case for why they are the same. And you have yet to respond other than to call names and whine.

GAC06 said:

---

The storm trooper twitter may be continuously dead ass wrong but it's another perspective. Plus it's a storm trooper. I mean come on.

---

Just remember...

Storm Troopers ALWAYS miss...

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Cool. Its ur position that an invading country is 100% responsible for the destruction and death that follows. And its more morally wrong if they weren't attacked first. And the onus is on the invading country to wake the hell up and leave post haste.

Now do the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, 350k dead civilians and the creation of ISIS and say the same thing about the US.........Go on....say the line

---

Ok. So sticking with the false equivalency (along with deflection so that you don't have to blame Russia)...

Focus here, though. This thread is about Russia and Ukraine.

The "US is evil and horribad" thread is over there. We can discuss all the evil and bad things America does on that one.

---

I never said the US was horribad.

Listen hard.

I am saying that our reasons for invading are pretty much the same reasons Russia invaded.

And it is hypocritical for you or anyone to take one stance on Russia's invasion and another stance on our invasions.

I am making this point to try to show that alot of the "Russia is 100% evil and any attempts at negotiation to resolve this is unprincipled and we need to hamstring our own ecpnomy and military to CRUSH the evil Russians" rhetoric is based on propaganda, emotions, and illogical thinking AND the fact that the MSM and politicians have pulled the wool over ur eyes precisely so they can benefit from war and death and conflict.

If this is a flase equivalency....which you have stated multiple times, then you SHOULD be able to easily explain why. I have made my case for why they are the same. And you have yet to respond other than to call names and whine.

---

The bolded is false.

Russia wanted to invade, take over the entire land mass of Ukraine and assimilate it into Russia.

We did not have ANY plans to do anything like that in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

And project much.

BTW, you made a comment earlier that we broke treaties with the Russians. Which ones?

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Cool. Its ur position that an invading country is 100% responsible for the destruction and death that follows. And its more morally wrong if they weren't attacked first. And the onus is on the invading country to wake the hell up and leave post haste.

Now do the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, 350k dead civilians and the creation of ISIS and say the same thing about the US.........Go on....say the line

---

Ok. So sticking with the false equivalency (along with deflection so that you don't have to blame Russia)...

Focus here, though. This thread is about Russia and Ukraine.

The "US is evil and horribad" thread is over there. We can discuss all the evil and bad things America does on that one.

---

I never said the US was horribad.

Listen hard.

I am saying that our reasons for invading are pretty much the same reasons Russia invaded.

And it is hypocritical for you or anyone to take one stance on Russia's invasion and another stance on our invasions.

I am making this point to try to show that alot of the "Russia is 100% evil and any attempts at negotiation to resolve this is unprincipled and we need to hamstring our own ecpnomy and military to CRUSH the evil Russians" rhetoric is based on propaganda, emotions, and illogical thinking AND the fact that the MSM and politicians have pulled the wool over ur eyes precisely so they can benefit from war and death and conflict.

If this is a flase equivalency....which you have stated multiple times, then you SHOULD be able to easily explain why. I have made my case for why they are the same. And you have yet to respond other than to call names and whine.

---

post the pictures of ukraone flying planes into the towers

GAC06 said:

---

The storm trooper twitter may be continuously dead ass wrong but it's another perspective. Plus it's a storm trooper. I mean come on.

---

It's a storm trooper. You know it ain't shooting straight.

DTP02 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The storm trooper twitter may be continuously dead ass wrong but it's another perspective. Plus it's a storm trooper. I mean come on.

---

It's a storm trooper. You know it ain't shooting straight.

---

Going to give a shout back to my earlier question: If we must stop Russia at Ukraine to prevent further Russian expansion...what would be Russia's likely next move or moves should Ukraine fall?

They have voiced in the past about wanting the baltics back. Possibly Moldova too.

Squadron7 said:

---

Going to give a shout back to my earlier question: If we must stop Russia at Ukraine to prevent further Russian expansion...what would be Russia's likely next move or moves should Ukraine fall?

---

Sigh, I'm a bit tired of the whole Ukraine war delusions/propaganda debate(s) and diatribes, but let's just take a step back for a moment; why would anyone in July 2023 think that if Russia takes Kiev next year (clearly they aren't doing it this year), they would next march their army into a neighboring country shortly to face a different larger army (one that is not utterly demotivated/ad hoc/conscripts/lacking air power etc.)?

To be perfectly frank, the consequences of a Russian defeat in Ukraine would likely be Putin's ouster in favor of a much more militant executive. Take a look at who the leading contenders would be to succeed him, in any choice of media/speculative press. Buffering all the states to the north/west of Russia with nato forces only increases the risk of a skirmish/confrontation either short or long term. It's insanity personified in foreign policy, most especially with a depleted arsenal of our own, and a senile, treasonous president.

And yes, a bunch of lunatic mercenaries (like Wagner) intent on fanatically creating a war in the Suwalki Corridor would be…worst case (outside of/prior to nuclear escalations).

PMC #Wagner was transferred to #Belarus, because #Russia "in which case" will need the Suwalki corridor (the territory between Poland and Lithuania), State Duma deputy Kartapolov revealed.

🤡🤡🤡 pic.twitter.com/fFV12TvAOw

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) July 16, 2023

High officials in the Duma talking about an attack on Poland and Lithuania over access to Baltic sea through the Suwalki Corridor. Would NATO trigger article 5 and actually go to war? https://t.co/d6tI4DCQXC

— Persona non grata🇬🇧🇷🇺🇮🇹🇭🇺🚜🚛 (@Silverfox6158) July 19, 2023

Quote:

---

To be perfectly frank, the consequences of a Russian defeat in Ukraine would likely be Putin's ouster in favor of a much more militant executive.

---

Never thought I'd see the "hey guys we have to let Russia win so they don't get someone worse than Putin" argument yet here we are.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

To be perfectly frank, the consequences of a Russian defeat in Ukraine would likely be Putin's ouster in favor of a much more militant executive.

---

Never thought I'd see the "hey guys we have to let Russia win so they don't get someone worse than Putin" argument yet here we are.

---

Genuinely curious, have you bothered to read a single damn thing about possible successors?

https://www.politico.eu/article/after-putin-12-people-ready-ruin-russia-next/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18633062/putin-replacement-worse-russia-opposition-jailed/

Who are you (or more seriously others) pulling for to replace him, Gary Kasparov? They aren't going to have a philosopher king any time soon.

Squadron7 said:

---

Going to give a shout back to my earlier question: If we must stop Russia at Ukraine to prevent further Russian expansion...what would be Russia's likely next move or moves should Ukraine fall?

---

They've always loved them some Georgia...