WWAW US/UK about to formally declare war on Russia?

[porquedealer]

Exactly what we are doing now is working. Putin took so many kickbacks from defense contractors it seems that every billion spent on defense was actually 100 million in legit spending. Now that they need the military they are stuck with 40 year old equipment and Iranian surplus garbage.

40 year old tank, 2 year old tank. Doesn't make a difference when hit by a balloon filled with a $1 of paint.
or an fpv drone with HE

 

[JebJoh]

40 year old tank, 2 year old tank. Doesn't make a difference when hit by a balloon filled with a $1 of paint.
or an fpv drone with HE

It does make a big difference. Go find your laptop from 40 years ago and compare it to what you use today.

 

[LockedHDD__Pot]

We are sending billions to our own defense contractors to create and build modern weapons

innocent death for profit, great!

Our tanks will rot away in warehouses and get turned to scrap otherwise.

call me a hippy, but maybe that's a good thing... how about making something useful which doesn't involve proxy wars & killing innocent people. Just a thought.

 

[LockedHDD__Pot]

It does make a big difference. Go find your laptop from 40 years ago and compare it to what you use today.

... then throw a paint balloon at it

 

[Suetonius]

call me a hippy, but maybe that's a good thing... how about making something useful which doesn't involve proxy wars & killing innocent people. Just a thought.

The argument here is that it implies if we weren’t spending money on X we could spend it on Y. I just don’t buy it. Sadly we live in a Democratic country where everything will be argued about incessantly. If you propose even a 5% cut in defense spending you’ll either be shot down or straight up not reelected. Say you want that 5% cut to reallocate it towards caring for people? Thats evil socialism, or something. It almost has to be accepted that the rate and amount we spend on the military will always be a constant, and we can only spend money on our citizens by pulling in even more money from somewhere instead of reallocation

 

[porquedealer]

It does make a big difference. Go find your laptop from 40 years ago and compare it to what you use today.

With <$1000 drones taking out both with relative ease. It really doesn't. Warfare is changing, this seems like a big ol experiment and a way to purge

The US also has a manufacturing time. as you deplete your old tech sending it out to Ukraine, you cant build the new tech fast enough.
When hamas fired the barrage at Israel, they depleted their Iron dome reserves and couldn't immediately source any from US because they had gone to Ukraine. Not really a big issue for you as US is unlikely to be invaded, but it is impacting your own defense/offense.

 

[JoeBrotheChildSpitGuzzler]

Ammo is ammo. So we agree that is being produced and sent now. My point is still that the argument “we’re sending billions” is bad. We are sending billions to our own defense contractors to create and build modern weapons while unloading excess equipment built in the 90s to help Ukraine. Our tanks will rot away in warehouses and get turned to scrap otherwise.

1 We are also sending cash directly to Ukraine with little to no accountability. Biden cut a check directly to zelensky.

2 I'm not just talking bullets. As I said this includes other munitions like missiles and rockets that cost millions a piece and are in limited quantities. No they aren't being produced as fast as they are used. This is why escalation with Russia wouldn't go nearly as we as we think.

3 I don't see it as any less a waste of tax dollars if the money goes to Raytheon or whoever for whatever cushy contract they have with the government.

4 And as I said it's not just the US. Germany and UK are also sending these things and depleting their own stocks. England has also sent tanks that arent old relics and it wasn't the magic bullet they hoped. The Kursk offensive, despite damn near direct foreign involvement failed to produce any results

Edit: even Ukraine admits Russia's resources are greater than theirs, having grown since the start of the war https://www.theguardian.com/world/a...-general-on-turning-the-tables-against-russia

"They have more of everything: tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, soldiers. Their original 100,000-strong invasion force has grown to 520,000, he said, with a goal by the end of 2024 of 690,000 men. The figures for Ukraine have not been made public."

 

[Guest]

We’re paying Ukrainian pensions lol

It’s basically just sacrificing ukraine so black rock can own their fertile farm land, to ruin it and make it poisonous like farmland everywhere else.

If you support that because “Russia bad and we help fight bad” you’re evil.

 

[JebJoh]

innocent death for profit, great!

call me a hippy, but maybe that's a good thing... how about making something useful which doesn't involve proxy wars & killing innocent people. Just a thought.

Where have you been since 1963? This is what we do. It is possible, even likely that in 10 years I will look back on my support of this war and feel like a silly goose, just like Vietnam war supporters did in the 80s. For now I support Ukraine and their sovereignty because they are our ally and for no other reason. I hope they join nato the day after this ends.

 

[LockedHDD__Pot]

The argument here is that it implies if we weren’t spending money on X we could spend it on Y. I just don’t buy it. Sadly we live in a Democratic country where everything will be argued about incessantly. If you propose even a 5% cut in defense spending you’ll either be shot down or straight up not reelected. Say you want that 5% cut to reallocate it towards caring for people? Thats evil socialism, or something. It almost has to be accepted that the rate and amount we spend on the military will always be a constant, and we can only spend money on our citizens by pulling in even more money from somewhere instead of reallocation

I wanted to be cheeky, but you make a good point

 

[LockedHDD__Pot]

For now I support Ukraine and their sovereignty because they are our ally

what exactly does this 'ally' do for you? Seems like a money-funnel to the elites, & something tells me you're not an elite

 

[Suetonius]

It’s basically just sacrificing ukraine so black rock can own their fertile farm land, to ruin it and make it poisonous like farmland everywhere else.

How awful, a US company owns foreign land and collects money from it, depriving that foreign nation of the wealth? Wait…You’re saying that like its a bad thing?

 

[JebJoh]

1 We are also sending cash directly to Ukraine with little to no accountability. Biden cut a check directly to zelensky.

We’ve sent maybe 10 billion in cash and that was for humanitarian aid. There was plenty of accountability as the money was divided up among Ukraine and neighboring countries who helped relocate women and children. Hysterical misinformation doesn’t help anyone.

2 I'm not just talking bullets. As I said this includes other munitions like missiles and rockets that cost millions a piece and are in limited quantities. No they aren't being produced as fast as they are used. This is why escalation with Russia wouldn't go nearly as we as we think.

We disarmed them, we are now responsible for helping them defend themselves. Otherwise they’d never have agreed to give up their nukes.

3 I don't see it as any less a waste of tax dollars if the money goes to Raytheon or whoever for

So? Since when do you get a say in how a defense budget is spent?

 

[Suetonius]

I don’t give a fuck what happens to foreigners as long as it benefits us

 

[JebJoh]

what exactly does this 'ally' do for you? Seems like a money-funnel to the elites, & something tells me you're not an elite

This ally gave up its nuclear program because nato promised to defend them. They also supplied most of the wheat Europe needs before Putin burned it down.

Everything is a money funnel to the elites, that’s why they are elites.

 

[JoeBrotheChildSpitGuzzler]

We’ve sent maybe 10 billion in cash and that was for humanitarian aid. There was plenty of accountability as the money was divided up among Ukraine and neighboring countries who helped relocate women and children. Hysterical misinformation doesn’t help anyone.


We disarmed them, we are now responsible for helping them defend themselves. Otherwise they’d never have agreed to give up their nukes.


So? Since when do you get a say in how a defense budget is spent?

You're arguing a different point than I am. You are arguing whether we should help Ukraine. My argument is that continuing this is fruitless and costs money and lives where Ukraine can't win the way things are and escalating is also a bad decision. You can argue our responsibility to support them and you may be right, but I'm showing all the ways the support you want has been ineffective. We keep refusing to consider making peace because we are holding out for a big victory (A Final Punch, if you will) that isn't going to come.

 

[JebJoh]

You're arguing a different point than I am. You are arguing whether we should help Ukraine. My argument is that continuing this is fruitless and costs money and lives where Ukraine can't win the way things are and escalating is also a bad decision. You can argue our responsibility to support them and you may be right, but I'm showing all the ways the support you want has been ineffective. We keep refusing to consider making peace because we are holding out for a big victory (A Final Punch, if you will) that isn't going to come.

It’s not even a decision. It is a responsibility. We disarmed them and promised to defend them. We have no choice. The other option is to give them their nukes back.

Their defense would have collapsed in 6 weeks without our support, what we are doing has been effective. So until Ukraine decides to surrender, nato is on the hook for their support.

 

[Guest]

You're arguing a different point than I am. You are arguing whether we should help Ukraine. My argument is that continuing this is fruitless and costs money and lives where Ukraine can't win the way things are and escalating is also a bad decision. You can argue our responsibility to support them and you may be right, but I'm showing all the ways the support you want has been ineffective. We keep refusing to consider making peace because we are holding out for a big victory (A Final Punch, if you will) that isn't going to come.

His position is also just naive.

What you think we “should” do is different to what we actually can do. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that.

Ukraine can’t win, even with our continued support, they can tread water and sell off their country and kill all their men in the mean time.

If you’re talking about how they can actually fight back in a serious sense, you’re then talking about nuclear world war.

 

[Guest]

It’s not even a decision. It is a responsibility. We disarmed them and promised to defend them. We have no choice. The other option is to give them their nukes back.

Their defense would have collapsed in 6 weeks without our support, what we are doing has been effective. So until Ukraine decides to surrender, nato is on the hook for their support.

We have sabotaged peace talks and made it clear they can’t ever surrender or enter into negotiations.

 

[JebJoh]

His position is also just naive.

What you think we “should” do is different to what we actually can do. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that.

Ukraine can’t win, even with our continued support, they can tread water and sell off their country and kill all their men in the mean time.

If you’re talking about how they can actually fight back in a serious sense, you’re then talking about nuclear world war.

You’re such a brainwashed imbecile that I wouldn’t bother explaining anything to you. I laid out my opinion clearly enough in this thread, you can agree or disagree but I expect nothing more than Fox News regurgitating from you. I understand you have a crush on Putin, the guy whose career was spent imprisoning anyone who dared practice religion under communism, but he’s still the worst person on the planet.