Ukraine. Ukraine. Ukraine.

[Donnyboy]

Do you seriously believe that statement?

The American politicians haven't won a war since the 40s. The military has won several. I'll stick to my lifetime:

Iraq 1991 was won in weeks against one of the largest standing armies in the world stage the time with well under 200 combat losses on our side. We pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and established controls to prevent further hostilities there. Military win.

Iraq 2003 was a dumb decision, however, the military did what was asked of it and we replaced a dictator with a functioning democratic government.... which we walked away from early (thanks Obama) leaving a power vacuum for ISIS to take hold. I don't remember well enough how much that was Iraq asking us to leave vs us walking away so I won't postulate. Military win, political loss.

Afghanistan was rebuilt as a functioning democracy until the American people became tired of US troops still being there and then Trump gave up the country (didn’t learn from us leaving Iraq). We were acting as advisors helping to find remove terrorists and had no combat role from Jan 2015 on. By the way we are STILL in Germany and Japan after replacing their governments. Rebuilding a country and establishing changes takes many decades. The American people and politicians failed there, not the military. That should have been talked about as a foreign base with advisory role instead of as a combat tour as soon as we cut our combat role. It would have been more tolerable to the American people. How you talk about things matters, and our country sucks at explaining important things to the public. Military win, political loss.

Ok I'll play....

In 91 we whooped em so bad we went back 10 years later to fight the same folks leadership and all. We must not have understood our own controls to prevent further hostilities because......

In 2003 we went over and wrecked a country on a lie, further destabilized the region, and ISIS took hold. Let's take another victory lap.

Afghanistan..we really were there twice once in the 80's gave them toys to get Russia out then left all our toys for the Taliban to take over the country and send it further backwards than it already was....and that's saying something. Then they appreciated our proxy victory so much 9/11 happened. Then went over in the 2000s spent god knows how much and left it to guess who....the Taliban and had people literally falling off planes on our exit. If it takes decades to rebuild countries we are in decade number 5 and they aren't any better off.

Lots of dead innocent people in the conflicts above.

You are correct that we have the coolest toys and the best trained fighters in the world. We can show up and wreck your place better than anyone in world. Then we leave it to fight again soon. We have won battles. It's not working. What we are doing only leads to more war.

 

[PF5]

 

[CowboyJD]

You know what I was saying...

We know what you SAID.

You should say what you mean so we don't have to try to interpret Donnyspeak.

 

[cowboyinexile]

You know what I was saying...

 

[mugatu]

Ok I'll play....

In 91 we whooped em so bad we went back 10 years later to fight the same folks leadership and all. We must not have understood our own controls to prevent further hostilities because......

In 2003 we went over and wrecked a country on a lie, further destabilized the region, and ISIS took hold. Let's take another victory lap.

Afghanistan..we really were there twice once in the 80's gave them toys to get Russia out then left all our toys for the Taliban to take over the country and send it further backwards than it already was....and that's saying something. Then they appreciated our proxy victory so much 9/11 happened. Then went over in the 2000s spent god knows how much and left it to guess who....the Taliban and had people literally falling off planes on our exit. If it takes decades to rebuild countries we are in decade number 5 and they aren't any better off.

Lots of dead innocent people in the conflicts above.

You are correct that we have the coolest toys and the best trained fighters in the world. We can show up and wreck your place better than anyone in world. Then we leave it to fight again soon. We have won battles. It's not working. What we are doing only leads to more war.

Did you miss the "Military win political loss" and me putting issues on politicians? You blame generals for political failures "generals havent won a war since the 40s". It's like blaming the cook when the waiter drops your food on the way to the table. I blame politicians for political failures.

We need to stop leaving if we are still rebuilding, but again that is a POLITICAL FAILURE. Politicians need to do a better job of explaining and selling what is happening and needed to the American public, because they suck at it. If you collapse and replace a government you must stay there until the new one is fully stabile and able to handle the power vacuum when you leave.

Desert storm was handled properly. Leave government in place with the understanding on both sides that if sh!t resumes it'll be worse. OIF was a mistake due to political reasons, not military loss. OIF wasn't caused by or even related to Desert Storm, it was a bad cabinet distracting from what actually needed to be a focus on Afghanistan.

Military leadership is by and large strong. You blame them for issues out of their control, and now your preferred president is talking about replacing them with less experienced "yes men".

Who negotiated the handover to the Taliban? The same president that wants to replace and now prosecute generals. Biden screwed up the withdrawal but he wasnt the one that started it and bragged about how it couldnt be turned off. I hated that move and even discussion of a scheduled withdrawal - no matter the president involved. I was in Bagram for 6 months with our ready room right next to the base hospital, it hurt to see the footage of our chaotic leaving of the same base. To know it was because we negotiated a handover not to the government we'd help build up and support but to the same Taliban we removed from power was crushing.

Yes it takes decades and because of people like you, we never get a chance to succeed because you want to run away and we lose all the progress that was made. Then you are mad when things are not magically better. We could be considered as building their country for maybe 15 years, then left before we were done. The action there in the 80s was Russia destroying everything and us helping them fight back, no part of that was us moving them closer to a modern society.

 

[Donnyboy]

Did you miss the "Military win political loss" and me putting issues on politicians? You blame generals for political failures "generals havent won a war since the 40s". It's like blaming the cook when the waiter drops your food on the way to the table. I blame politicians for political failures.

We need to stop leaving if we are still rebuilding, but again that is a POLITICAL FAILURE. Politicians need to do a better job of explaining and selling what is happening and needed to the American public, because they suck at it. If you collapse and replace a government you must stay there until the new one is fully stabile and able to handle the power vacuum when you leave.

Desert storm was handled properly. Leave government in place with the understanding on both sides that if sh!t resumes it'll be worse. OIF was a mistake due to political reasons, not military loss. OIF wasn't caused by or even related to Desert Storm, it was a bad cabinet distracting from what actually needed to be a focus on Afghanistan.

Military leadership is by and large strong. You blame them for issues out of their control, and now your preferred president is talking about replacing them with less experienced "yes men".

Who negotiated the handover to the Taliban? The same president that wants to replace and now prosecute generals. Biden screwed up the withdrawal but he wasnt the one that started it and bragged about how it couldnt be turned off. I hated that move and even discussion of a scheduled withdrawal - no matter the president involved. I was in Bagram for 6 months with our ready room right next to the base hospital, it hurt to see the footage of our chaotic leaving of the same base. To know it was because we negotiated a handover not to the government we'd help build up and support but to the same Taliban we removed from power was crushing.

Yes it takes decades and because of people like you, we never get a chance to succeed because you want to run away and we lose all the progress that was made. Then you are mad when things are not magically better. We could be considered as building their country for maybe 15 years, then left before we were done. The action there in the 80s was Russia destroying everything and us helping them fight back, no part of that was us moving them closer to a modern society.

You can't remove politics from wars between nations. In your cook example it would be like removing the food.....chef cooks it servers serve it....but it's integral to the process. When you look at the wars we are referencing what does the US have to show for them other than dealing with them a second time at greater expense of life, money, and global standing. We can beat anyone in a battle....but those aren't wins.

Trump is not my preferred president. I have never voted for Trump.

I guess I was a more powerful child than I thought since people like me screwed up the first time we left Afghanistan high and dry in the 80's. I should have channeled that into something more productive than riding my bike. Or did you not mean the literal me.....kind of like I didn't mean a literal general.

 

[steross]

The United States is in as strong a position as it has ever been. The behavior of Putin are the last throes of a desperate regime seeing his power fade from the global stage.

 

[Big8+4-2-2+2-2+4+4]

What makes the long range capabilities different than what’s already happening? We’re already supplying weapons to Ukraine. Ukraine already has the arsenal. Ukraine is already striking deep into Russian territory with its own weapons. Russia is already an adversarial nation. Mutual assured destruction doctrine keeps thumbs off the buttons between the US and Russia. Trump has stated he wants to “de-escalate” our scope in assisting with Ukraine’s defense. Not using them only worsens Ukraine’s position at the peace table. If Russian is left combat ineffective for a period of time due to strikes, Ukraine can bargain for less territorial losses. The territory Russia will be gaining is going to be a mined wasteland for many years. If Trump draws a no NATO path for Ukraine, then they have no other choice than to use the weapons anyway since the US support will likely be over.

 

[UrbanCowboy]

Dude….. we have stuck our finger in every part of the world since we dropped two nukes. There have been good things we have done and bad things we have done…..history isn’t trending our way. We have fought on every continent but Antarctica and Australia and the only reason we haven’t there is there are no people or anything of value. It has to stop sometime. It hasn’t worked. More of the world hates us now than then and we have spent trillions and countless people all over the world have died.

I can't believe I'm wading into this, but - you have no clue what you are talking about. Your posts have a "I'm 14 and these are super deep thoughts" energy. Which is crazy to me because you are generally a smart dude.

You're suggesting we return to a multi-polar world, which, to be frank, is batshit crazy talk that I'd expect from a couple of college dudes smoking a joint in their dorm room. "We can't run the world...maaaan. Like no blood for oil dude!". Your policy is, what, exactly? 'Not our problem'? 'Not our business?' No. You have no policy, only rhetoric. You offer no solutions for an increasingly connected world in any of your ramblings.

Dude - you brought up the invasion of Iraq. I mean... . Jesus H, brother. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Really, all this to say, can I have some of whatever you're smoking?

 

[Donnyboy]

Ukraine Fired U.S.-Made Missiles Into Russia for First Time, Officials Say

The attack came just days after President Biden gave Ukraine permission to use the weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Welllllll that didn't take long.... Whether you are the hardest core isolationist or chief of Team USA World Police this was so incredibly stupid to do right now.

 

[steross]

Ukraine Fired U.S.-Made Missiles Into Russia for First Time, Officials Say

The attack came just days after President Biden gave Ukraine permission to use the weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Welllllll that didn't take long.... Whether you are the hardest core isolationist or chief of Team USA World Police this was so incredibly stupid to do right now.

What time frame would make more sense? After Russia moves the ammo depot out of range?

The dumb part was announcing this ahead of time.

 

[GOGETUMPOKE]

Ukraine Fired U.S.-Made Missiles Into Russia for First Time, Officials Say

The attack came just days after President Biden gave Ukraine permission to use the weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Welllllll that didn't take long.... Whether you are the hardest core isolationist or chief of Team USA World Police this was so incredibly stupid to do right now.

 

[mugatu]

What time frame would make more sense? After Russia moves the ammo depot out of range?

The dumb part was announcing this ahead of time.

Apparently Ukraine is supposed to fight a larger invading army without responding to the max legal extent possible. They already seem to be following laws of international conflict unlike their invader.

Rules and limits for Ukraine but not for Russia. Don't push back or they might invade harder and commit even more war crimes.

 

[Donnyboy]

What time frame would make more sense? After Russia moves the ammo depot out of range?

The dumb part was announcing this ahead of time.

I guess I just feel that a president who has done nothing to de-escalate a war with a nuclear power shouldn't escalate one when he has 60 days left on his term. If this was the plan why not anytime in the last two years.? What would our response be if Russian weapons were flying into the US from a bordering nation. I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone here. Why now.....why this....it could have been done at any point. It's a sudden and large change that didn't have to be done. 60 days from now there will be a different strategy from the US whether it's the right or wrong all this will do is kill some folks and make it harder.

 

[GOGETUMPOKE]

Apparently Ukraine is supposed to fight a larger invading army without responding to the max legal extent possible. They already seem to be following laws of international conflict unlike their invader.

Rules and limits for Ukraine but not for Russia. Don't push back or they might invade harder and commit even more war crimes.

Putin Lowers Threshold for Using Nuclear Weapons in Updated Doctrine, Sparking Escalation Concerns - The Moscow Times

President Vladimir Putin approved changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine Tuesday, expanding conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used, including in cases of attacks by non-nuclear states supported by nuclear powers.

www.themoscowtimes.com

The updates follow reports that U.S. President Joe Biden has authorized Kyiv to use long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia, a move the Kremlin warned could lead to “a significant new round of escalation.”

The revised doctrine states that nuclear strikes could be justified by “aggression against the Russian Federation … by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state.”

It also identifies threats such as “the deployment by a potential adversary of missile defense systems, medium- and short-range ballistic missiles, precision non-nuclear and hypersonic weapons, strike drones and directed energy weapons” as grounds for potential nuclear retaliation.

The document emphasizes that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to any weapons of mass destruction used against it or its allies, or in the event of aggression using conventional weapons that threaten the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Russia or Belarus.

 

[mugatu]

Russia claims it shot down US-made ATACMS missiles and issues nuclear threat

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Tuesday that Russia's new nuclear weapons doctrine means Ukraine's use of Western rockets "can prompt a nuclear response."

abcnews.go.com

"The changes to Russia's nuclear doctrine were unveiled several weeks ago but only signed by Putin on Tuesday, as officials in Moscow expressed anger at the U.S. decision to allow ATACMS use on Russian territory.

The doctrine now says Russia can launch a nuclear attack against a country assisting a non-nuclear country in aggression against Russia that critically threatens the country's state integrity.

Moscow has repeatedly threatened nuclear weapon use against Ukraine and its Western partners throughout its full-scale invasion of the country."

More Russian nuclear saber rattling... do not believe there are teeth behind this as they will not start an open war with NATO over our support for Ukraine. I dont believe anything has changed there.

 

[mugatu]

why not anytime in the last two years.? What would our response be if Russian weapons were flying into the US from a bordering nation.

Completely agree here. Should have never hamstrung them in the first place but we've already had that conversation.

We would have had to have invaded a Russian friendly nation for this to hold... at which point it should be expected. When you invade a neighbor expect them the shoot back into your country any time they can.

My guess is the slow roll of allowed targeting and use was to give Russia an honest chance to walk away vs us fully opening the spigot and having Russians immediately killed on Russian soil and have to deal with the potential political fallout that may have caused Putin. But I'm not an international military and political strategist and I have no connection to the administration so it's my guess like everything else.

 

[mugatu]

Putin Lowers Threshold for Using Nuclear Weapons in Updated Doctrine, Sparking Escalation Concerns - The Moscow Times

President Vladimir Putin approved changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine Tuesday, expanding conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used, including in cases of attacks by non-nuclear states supported by nuclear powers.

www.themoscowtimes.com

The updates follow reports that U.S. President Joe Biden has authorized Kyiv to use long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia, a move the Kremlin warned could lead to “a significant new round of escalation.”

The revised doctrine states that nuclear strikes could be justified by “aggression against the Russian Federation … by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state.”

It also identifies threats such as “the deployment by a potential adversary of missile defense systems, medium- and short-range ballistic missiles, precision non-nuclear and hypersonic weapons, strike drones and directed energy weapons” as grounds for potential nuclear retaliation.

The document emphasizes that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to any weapons of mass destruction used against it or its allies, or in the event of aggression using conventional weapons that threaten the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Russia or Belarus.

Yep. Saw that this morning. Not surprised, they will not lauch a preemptive nuclear strike on the US over weapons launched from Ukraine by Ukraine. Such an attack would be mutually assured destruction for an action they would have been expecting.

This is posturing to the American people to help Trump excuse walking away not an actual threat that will be acted on. As it said Russia has threatened nuclear strikes nearly weekly for 2+ years.

 

[Pokey]

I guess I just feel that a president who has done nothing to de-escalate a war with a nuclear power shouldn't escalate one when he has 60 days left on his term. If this was the plan why not anytime in the last two years.? What would our response be if Russian weapons were flying into the US from a bordering nation. I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone here. Why now.....why this....it could have been done at any point. It's a sudden and large change that didn't have to be done. 60 days from now there will be a different strategy from the US whether it's the right or wrong all this will do is kill some folks and make it harder.

Well we certainly don’t know the current intelligence on the matter. If you can speculate then so can I. When Trump takes over he’ll tell his buddy Putin he can have what they want. Might even set a date so Putin can accomplish his goals. Then tell Ukraine tough toenails and stop all shipments of arms from the US. Trump doesn’t give a damn about how it leaves Europe and even our NATO allies.

 

[steross]

What would our response be if Russian weapons were flying into the US from a bordering nation.

Please give me more details.

Would this be because we unilaterally invaded Mexico and we have spent years bombing their cities and killing off their citizens for no reason? Or, are you asking if all the sudden Russian weapons started flying into the US and we had not done anything to the country they were coming from? Because, my answer will be exceedingly different depending on the actual situation.

Are you sure you aren't taking Putin's side. Because, that question is very similar to the Russian bots questions on X.