Exactly! Our media isn't in the tank because they are controlled by government. They are in the tank because they are liberal trash and controlled by democrats, who sometimes control government. There is a distinct difference. And don't say it's the deep state. Because Bush and Reagan's deep state controlled the government and the media still roasted them.

Teslag said:

---

It's more of an effort to show Russia that they cannot and will not be allowed to project violent expansion westward. We won't allow it.

---

I know you dont acknowledge the cost and risks related to the US funding/weaponizing Ukraine.

But what does the US have to lose by letting Russia take Eastern Ukraine or all of Ukraine for that matter?

Is it the increase in Russian GDP and size that you think hurts the US? Every other country west of Ukraine is in NATO, and Putin has never expressed interest in them. It's only the US that has been expanding NATO eastward since fall of Soviet Union.

We shouldn't care about Ukrainians being "oppressed" by Russia any more than we care about Africans being oppressed in a number of countries.

Quote:

---

and Putin has never expressed interest in them.

---

This is false he looks at the baltics the same way he looks at Ukraine

Quote:

---

It's only the US that has been expanding NATO eastward since fall of Soviet Union.

---

NATO doesn't expand. It's a defensive pact that countries often times literally beg to join.

Why cant you answer the question above?

You have totally downplayed the cost and risk of US involvement, but what is the benefit? Why do we have to keep funding?

We stop an attempt of them to spread their influence westward, exposed their weakness to the rest of the world, show our resolve, study a modern battlefield and tactics, we get to kill and weaken an adversary for pennies and no loss of our own, among others.

Russia is trying to influence countries around the globe. They don't like us. They won't stop disliking us and trying to harm us. Even if we leave or left Ukraine alone.

So basically "Putin bad man, must not let him win".

How does Putin spread influence westward thru NATO? That's BS propaganda, there are existing treaty terms that prevent it.

Russia is a big country with tons of nukes, but in terms of their economic strength they are nothing to be concerned about. Its meaningless for us to let them go from the GDP of FL to the GDP of TX. Not at all worth 100s of billions and 100s thousands of lives.

IF we weren't on an unsustainable fiscal path with debilitating debt, perhaps your arguement may be arguable. BUT as it stands now, we have no business wasting what you call "pennies"....$200B will fast approach $1T+.

Your exact same arguements were used for Iraq and Afghanistan. Weaken our enemy, punish bad actors, don't let their influence and power grow.

But thanks for answering....

This is a pretty good debate between the 2 guys in the middle. Scott Horton clearly knows more about what's going on an makes the correct arguement. The other airforce youtuber guy basically argues the same stuff Teslag and others keep parroting.



If you make it past the yelling over each other, there are some good historical arguments and objective analysis of likely outcomes vs futile escalation.

56 min mark is worth learning actual history that so many ignore.

Care to break down that $200b?

Break down?

$180B to Ukriane and defense contractors, $20B to corrupt buearacrats.

Care to break down how $200B is "pennies"?

Don't bother - homeboy profits from the war along with every other annoying defense contractor on this board. Lives for a buck is their motto!

BlueTaze said:

---

Break down?

$180B to Ukriane and defense contractors, $20B to corrupt buearacrats.

Care to break down how $200B is "pennies"?

---

Was that over one year? 3 years? Was it all new? Was it all cash? Was it book value of old weapons? New weapons? Sources?

Brother Shamus said:

---

Don't bother - homeboy profits from the war along with every other annoying defense contractor on this board. Lives for a buck is their motto!

---

That would explain things.

In one breath you say it's just "pennies", in the next you demand an itemized expenditure break down.

I will be very surprised if it doesnt end up being more than $200B of actual expenditure in the end. Iraq and Afghan was $4-8T!!! I guess that is more than "pennies", maybe it's "a few dollars" to you...Better get a break down to be sure!

Instead of crying over spilled milk, the better question is how much is too much? What is the dollar figure amount you would say is too much we need to cut it off?

If you can't define what our stop loss is, you are just another irresponsible person who thinks we can just print and spend unlimited. Its careless, and probably the biggest threat to our empire. Our enemies want us to go further into debt, they own our debt.

If you can't clearly define what is too much, YOU are part of the problem.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-fails-7th-audit-row-unable-fully-account-824b-budget

He asks you to do something the Pentagon itself can't even do: manage and account for its overbloated budget!

lmao

I hope he doesn't tuck his tail and ignore this question as he has every time I've asked it in other perspectives. You're absolutely correct about the folks spending like our resources are limitless brining about our downfall

BlueTaze said:

---

In one breath you say it's just "pennies", in the next you demand an itemized expenditure break down.

I will be very surprised if it doesnt end up being more than $200B of actual expenditure in the end. Iraq and Afghan was $4-8T!!! I guess that is more than "pennies", maybe it's "a few dollars" to you...Better get a break down to be sure!

Instead of crying over spilled milk, the better question is how much is too much? What is the dollar figure amount you would say is too much we need to cut it off?

If you can't define what our stop loss is, you are just another irresponsible person who thinks we can just print and spend unlimited. Its careless, and probably the biggest threat to our empire. Our enemies want us to go further into debt, they own our debt.

If you can't clearly define what is too much, YOU are part of the problem.

---

So you can't break it down and have no source. Thanks!

Teslag said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

In one breath you say it's just "pennies", in the next you demand an itemized expenditure break down.

I will be very surprised if it doesnt end up being more than $200B of actual expenditure in the end. Iraq and Afghan was $4-8T!!! I guess that is more than "pennies", maybe it's "a few dollars" to you...Better get a break down to be sure!

Instead of crying over spilled milk, the better question is how much is too much? What is the dollar figure amount you would say is too much we need to cut it off?

If you can't define what our stop loss is, you are just another irresponsible person who thinks we can just print and spend unlimited. Its careless, and probably the biggest threat to our empire. Our enemies want us to go further into debt, they own our debt.

If you can't clearly define what is too much, YOU are part of the problem.

---

So you can't break it down and have no source. Thanks!

---

And you can't answer a simple question that more than several posters have asked you here. How much money spent on this massive grift is too much? We could have done a hell of a lot more good here in our own country with this amount of money than will ever be done in Eastern Europe. That's a fact.

Well this thread blew up. Is it still the same 5 posters having the same argument again in round 7,432?? Sprinkled with some nuclear doom?

……..

I'm okay with $150 to $200 billion a year on it for direct military equipment training and ammunition

Biden has no clue what's happening. Here is the frontman for the Obama power play and the message is clear

THIS IS WHY THEY LOST!!!

BLINKEN: “President Biden has committed to making sure that every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door [to Ukraine] between now and January 20th”

pic.twitter.com/e1Te1bfX5c

— Graham Allen (@GrahamAllen_1) November 14, 2024

Trump can't personally get involved due to the Logan Act, but I would imagine he is sending untraceable messages to a few like minded NATO members like Victor Orban of Hungary to communicate with Putin to hold off for 2 months !

Teslag said:

---

I'm okay with $150 to $200 billion a year on it for direct military equipment training and ammunition

---

Trying to get up to date with this thread, but you are saying $150-200 billion a year to Ukraine?

Well, to Ukraine then into Russia. Or into a Russian. Either is fine.

Teslag said:

---

I'm okay with $150 to $200 billion a year on it for direct military equipment training and ammunition

---

Tes, how does it make you feel to hear Blinken say that the war funding goes to "made in America products" and that it creates "American jobs"?

Is that one of the benefits? Yeah, tons of dead Ukrainians and Russians, but the economic benefit of taxpayer funds diverted to war is great!

BlueTaze said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's more of an effort to show Russia that they cannot and will not be allowed to project violent expansion westward. We won't allow it.

---

But what does the US have to lose by letting Russia take Eastern Ukraine or all of Ukraine for that matter?

---

What's in it for us? Global economic stability. Lower, more reliable consumer prices. Avoiding even larger, wider conflicts. In other words, a lot.

Same arguement was made for Iraq. That evil guy named Saddam was gonna takeover and create instability! Would have been wider conflicts otherwise. Glad we went over there, a lot was in it for us!

NYT reporting Biden might give nukes to the green goblin as a parting gift?

According to the NYT, unnamed US and European officials have "even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union," which "would be complicated and have serious implications."

Yes, implications like… pic.twitter.com/gILZNqWctC

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 21, 2024

Zaluzhny: WW3 has begun.

Quote:

---

Kyiv's former military commander in chief said the direct involvement of Russian allies in Ukraine means that World War III has officially begun.

"I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun," former military chief Valery Zaluzhny warned Thursday, according to Politico.

---

But I was told this is just saber rattling, and arming/funding Ukraine meant we were safe from inflation/wider conflicts etc. This clown is in London now, so maybe he is just parroting Russian propaganda or something. He made the statement during a Pravda award ceremony, after all.

Quote:

---

Zaluzhny's grim warning came during the second Ukrainska Pravda's UP100 award ceremony, which celebrates 100 leaders of Ukrainian civil society, politics, military, business, sports and culture.

---

nortex97 said:

---

NYT reporting Biden might give nukes to the green goblin as a parting gift?

According to the NYT, unnamed US and European officials have "even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union," which "would be complicated and have serious implications."

Yes, implications like… pic.twitter.com/gILZNqWctC

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 21, 2024

---

Nowhere in that article does it say "Biden might give Ukraine nukes"