Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.

Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?

Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.

As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order to maintain an easier battlefield for themselves.

---

The expected Russia response is not an attack on a NATO country, but a nuke in Ukraine.

Then what.....

---

The world treats Russia like the Japanese boardroom treated the Kohai in Rising Sun. He will have ZERO support and his floundering economy of today will look like a skeleton in nothing flat with zero trade going in or out. It will spell Putin's end for sure.

---

So, WWIII.

---

No. On the contrary, the entire world will simply cut Russia out. You think he will attack the world or the world will attack him? Economically yes. A nuclear exchange? No.

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.

Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?

Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.

As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order to maintain an easier battlefield for themselves.

---

The expected Russia response is not an attack on a NATO country, but a nuke in Ukraine.

Then what.....

---

It'd end the same way for russia

nortex97 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I'd have thought the pro war folks would be excited at this.

---

Says the pro nuclear war guy....

---

Once again, if you could stop lying about my positions I'd appreciate it.

---

"A nuclear response may be warranted to end the provocation"

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What would you recommend to force Putin to the negotiating table in good faith?

---

A phone call with someone capable of negotiating.

---

And what do you pressure him with in this phone call?

Teslag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I'd have thought the pro war folks would be excited at this.

---

Says the pro nuclear war guy....

---

Once again, if you could stop lying about my positions I'd appreciate it.

---

"A nuclear response may be warranted to end the provocation"

---

I'm fine if you insist on quoting me but don't add a lie about what it means, and your lack of reading comprehension may make it impossible but I am trying not to call you a name. They may indeed feel it is warranted now, as General Flynn has also warned. You're welcome to snark all you want and add your own takes (about which I don't give a crap) just, again, stop lying about what I said. Thx.

nortex97 said:

---

I'd have thought the pro war folks would be excited at this.

---

Nobody, or at least very few IMO, are "pro-war". There are different views on how best to bring the war to a lasting conclusion that both projects strength and ensures future stability in the region.

That's like saying that being in favor of your own individual self defense when someone tries to sucker punch you means that you're "pro-violence".

The war never should have occurred in the first place and could have been avoided at numerous junctures but for the ineffectual boob propped up in the Oval Office.

But we are where we are and 99.9% of us (you, me, and everyone else) regardless of what strategic approach we subscribe to now that we're stuck with this god awful situation, want to get out of it ASAP with the best possible outcome.

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What would you recommend to force Putin to the negotiating table in good faith?

---

A phone call with someone capable of negotiating.

---

And what do you pressure him with in this phone call?

---

Pressure? Interesting word choice.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What would you recommend to force Putin to the negotiating table in good faith?

---

A phone call with someone capable of negotiating.

---

And what do you pressure him with in this phone call?

---

Pressure? Interesting word choice.

---

Something tells me you would have no issue with Trump pressuring Zelensky...

What was the Tom Clancy book where a nuke popped off somewhere and nobody could figure out for sure who did it?

Consider that scenario for a while.It doesn't have to be a direct exchange or large yield nuke on a major city. A nuclear event anywhere would sent the world into chaos, post 9-11 style.

Quote:

---

want to get out of it ASAP with the best possible outcome.

---

Nortex has stated he would rather see Russia see this to the end and "win" rather than this war ending today along current lines with Ukraine in NATO.

Who really is "pro-war" with that in mind?

I think it's fair to say that the world would be in chaos as a result regardless as to what other geopolitical circumstances might be at the time. Current tensions certainly wouldn't help matters though, I agree.

B-1 83 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.

Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?

Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.

As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order to maintain an easier battlefield for themselves.

---

The expected Russia response is not an attack on a NATO country, but a nuke in Ukraine.

Then what.....

---

The world treats Russia like the Japanese boardroom treated the Kohai in Rising Sun. He will have ZERO support and his floundering economy of today will look like a skeleton in nothing flat with zero trade going in or out. It will spell Putin's end for sure.

---

So, WWIII.

---

No. On the contrary, the entire world will simply cut Russia out. You think he will attack the world or the world will attack him? Economically yes. A nuclear exchange? No.

---

Sorry, there are way too many unknowns here, like how Putin would go down.

There is no doubt that the best case scenario is there be zero escalations during this Presidential lame duck period, and let the newly elected President do the job he was elected on.

Rossticus said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I'd have thought the pro war folks would be excited at this.

---

Nobody, or at least very few IMO, are "pro-war". There are different views on how best to bring the war to a lasting conclusion that both projects strength and ensures future stability in the region.

---

Quote:

---

Love the sound of secondaries, in orc land, with my coffee.

---

Quote:

---

Just stack Russian bodies.

---

I just respectfully disagree. I'm not going to call out the individuals who post things like this, commonly and sometimes daily, but the attitude of this being a team sport and the 'good guys' killing 'bad guys' is fun entertainment to watch and cheer on to me is particularly disgusting. I know when in the military things like 'blood, blood makes the grass grow' etc. is part of the training, but in truth most of us just age out of that kind of youthful enthusiasm.

Appreciate your post though, and wish I agreed with you.

You can name names. I'm one of those. I love seeing Russian troops killed, because they are garbage. I'd love to see Ukraine take back all that Russia has stolen. But I'd not hesitate to end this thing today along current lines and put Ukraine in NATO and end this. No more civilians dead. No more dead Ukrainian soldiers. No more dead Russian soldiers. I woudln't be completely happy with the outcome because Russia would still receive gains for a violent unprovoked invasion. But it's peace, and peace isn't cheap.

You wouldn't. You'd rather see more death so Russia could "win". And you've said as much so I'm not lying about what you've said.

Meanwhile, Biden's roaming around a rain forrest and here's Kamala's schedule.

Again, I couldn't care less about your opinion.

Quote:

---

You wouldn't. You'd rather see more death so Russia could "win". And you've said as much so I'm not lying about what you've said.

---

That's yet another inaccurate summary of what I have said, repeatedly. To try to help others reading this thread, I think we are safer when Russian leadership perceives that they are winning. I also think if they do suddenly take a lot more of 'Ukraine' it will save us money, which is a tangible benefit, but not a prayer for more bloodshed.

Have a nice day.

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What would you recommend to force Putin to the negotiating table in good faith?

---

A phone call with someone capable of negotiating.

---

And what do you pressure him with in this phone call?

---

Pressure? Interesting word choice.

---

Something tells me you would have no issue with Trump pressuring Zelensky...

---

Zelensky is a waste of space. Something tells me you'll not question his reasoning for not opening up discussions with Putin.

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.

Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?

Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.

As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order tomaintain an easier battlefield for themselves.

---

The expected Russia response is not an attack on a NATO country, but a nuke in Ukraine.

Then what.....

---

The world treats Russia like the Japanese boardroom treated the Kohai in Rising Sun. He will have ZERO support and his floundering economy of today will look like a skeleton in nothing flat with zero trade going in or out. It will spell Putin's end for sure.

---

So, WWIII.

---

No. On the contrary, the entire world will simply cut Russia out. You think he will attack the world or the world will attack him? Economically yes. A nuclear exchange? No.

---

Sorry, there are way too many unknowns here, like how Putin would go down.

There is no doubt that the best case scenario is there be zero escalations during this Presidential lame duck period, and let the newly elected President do the job he was elected on.

---

Perhaps this is part of what we voted for. If Trump has come out against this, I haven't seen it. His approach may well be "We'll turn up the heat a little and show you what could be done. Is it worth it? Better come talk, now."

It's going to be a crazy winter. A rememberable Christmas. Let's just hope the new admin can engage early with negotiations. Aka "Russia Collusion" according to leftists.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What would you recommend to force Putin to the negotiating table in good faith?

---

A phone call with someone capable of negotiating.

---

And what do you pressure him with in this phone call?

---

Pressure? Interesting word choice.

---

Something tells me you would have no issue with Trump pressuring Zelensky...

---

Zelensky is a waste of space. Something tells me you'll not question his reasoning for not opening up discussions with Putin.

---

Zelenskyy is going to have to accept that he's not getting his lands back if it's on the table for a deal, and that includes Trump telling him no more aid if he balks at that.

I can be reasonable. Can you? Are you capable of holding Putin to an equal fire?

nortex97 said:

---

Again, I couldn't care less about your opinion.

Quote:

---

You wouldn't. You'd rather see more death so Russia could "win". And you've said as much so I'm not lying about what you've said.

---

That's yet another inaccurate summary of what I have said, repeatedly. To try to help others reading this thread, I think we are safer when Russian leadership perceives that they are winning. I also think if they do suddenly take a lot more of 'Ukraine' it will save us money, which is a tangible benefit, but not a prayer for more bloodshed.

Have a nice day.

---

Would you be okay with ending this war today along current lines with Ukraine in NATO all the death stops?

Good lord yes, I don't care one iota about the lines between Russia and Ukraine. I also don't give a crap about nato, but I doubt Putin agrees to that.

Realistically, removing trade sanctions/tariffs and giving support to 'most favored nation' status might be a good carrot. I just don't think this 'stick' strategy is remotely smart.

Props to you then

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

What would you recommend to force Putin to the negotiating table in good faith?

---

A phone call with someone capable of negotiating.

---

And what do you pressure him with in this phone call?

---

Pressure? Interesting word choice.

---

Something tells me you would have no issue with Trump pressuring Zelensky...

---

Zelensky is a waste of space. Something tells me you'll not question his reasoning for not opening up discussions with Putin.

---

Zelenskyy is going to have to accept that he's not getting his lands back if it's on the table for a deal, and that includes Trump telling him no more aid if he balks at that.

I can be reasonable. Can you? Are you capable of holding Putin to an equal fire?

---

You call our involvement in this war reasonable?

What's in it for us?

B-1 83 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

For WW3 to start, Russia would have to attack a NATO country.

Which of you believes that Russia will directly attack a NATO country over a relatively minor tactical shift on the battlefield in Ukraine?

Keep in mind that Ukraine has been using US missiles against Russian territory for months. The recent shift only increases the range. That's it.

As all his previous nuclear threats have been for the past 2+ years, this threat is similarly empty as the only logic that supports it is the logic of the threat itself, not the follow-through. The threats remain continued attempts at encouraging self-deterrence on the part of their enemies in order tomaintain an easier battlefield for themselves.

---

The expected Russia response is not an attack on a NATO country, but a nuke in Ukraine.

Then what.....

---

The world treats Russia like the Japanese boardroom treated the Kohai in Rising Sun. He will have ZERO support and his floundering economy of today will look like a skeleton in nothing flat with zero trade going in or out. It will spell Putin's end for sure.

---

So, WWIII.

---

No. On the contrary, the entire world will simply cut Russia out. You think he will attack the world or the world will attack him? Economically yes. A nuclear exchange? No.

---

Sorry, there are way too many unknowns here, like how Putin would go down.

There is no doubt that the best case scenario is there be zero escalations during this Presidential lame duck period, and let the newly elected President do the job he was elected on.

---

Perhaps this is part of what we voted for. If Trump has come out against this, I haven't seen it. His approach may well be "We'll turn up the heat a little and show you what could be done. Is it worth it? Better come talk, now."

---

We didn't vote for this.

The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives.
Gotta lock in those $Trillions.
Life be damned!!! Imbeciles! https://t.co/ZzfwnhBxRh

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) November 17, 2024

There's a reason Junior is saying it and not his dad.

It should take a declaration of war by Congress to do what Biden just did.

jagvocate said:

---

It should take a declaration of war by Congress to do what Biden just did.

---

Have any U.S. weapons been used by Israel against those who attacked it?

We shipped thousands of airplanes, tanks, bullets, and other war material to russia and England before Dec 7, 1942.

Was that wrong too?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

We shipped thousands of airplanes, tanks, bullets, and other war material to russia and England before Dec 7, 1942.

Was that wrong too?

---

There were people who were protesting our involvement back then. No idea if it was a significant % or not because public sentiment wasn't polled/tracked the way it has been over the last 60 ish years.

Yws, I'm sure there where. That doesn't change the central question- was it the wrong choice to make, at that time. Did Roosevelt need to declare war before doing so?

Reporters are literally SCREAMING as they desperately try to get Biden to answer their questions.

He ignores them, ascends the short stairs, and heads back to Washington. pic.twitter.com/5HywCIKNuK

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 19, 2024

Do they take his hearing aids out?

I assume you mean 1941.

And FDR went to Congress for approval of the Lend-Lease act, if that's what you're talking about.

Rossticus said:

---

There's a reason Junior is saying it and not his dad.

---

What's your guess?

I guarantee you with that reaction Dad is not at all in favor of this.

Yes. Thank you. Fat fingers can't type.

Lend/lease passed on March 11, 1941, months before we declared war.

Maybe going to congress to ship weapons overseas is the right course, though i don't think telling countries how and when to use them should be part of the equation.

If you don't want countries to use such weapons, don't send them. Sending them and then disallowing particular uses seems like the worst option