Ukraine

Sending U.S. Troops to Ukraine Would Be a Massive Mistake

But politicians like Sen. Chris Coons are still flirting with the idea of direct American military intervention.

|

The White House has made it clear that American soldiers won't be joining the fight in Ukraine, and rightfully so. Having just withdrawn U.S. troops from a protracted war, President Joe Biden seems unwilling to assume the risks of entering another far-off conflict in the name of the American interest.

But that hasn't stopped Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) from making interventionist overtures. On Face the Nation this weekend, host Margaret Brennan questioned Coons on his recent statement that Congress and the Biden administration must "come to a common position about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to the aid in defense of Ukraine."

"You said if the answer is never, then we are inviting another level of escalation and brutality by Putin," said Brennan. "Are you arguing that President Biden…was wrong when he said he would not send troops to Ukraine? Are you asking him to set a red line?"

Worrying that we might "see Ukraine turn into Syria," Coons did not reject the idea that U.S. troops should remain uninvolved in the conflict in Ukraine. "The American people cannot turn away from this tragedy in Ukraine," the senator asserted. "I think the history of the 21st century turns on how fiercely we defend freedom in Ukraine and that Putin will only stop when we stop him."

Coons later backtracked on Twitter, saying he's "not calling for U.S. troops to go into the war in Ukraine." But his initial comments—which very clearly turn on the possibility of sending U.S. troops to Ukraine—highlight a worrying trend of politicians refusing to recognize the costs of direct U.S. military intervention in the conflict there. In addition to the question of putting American boots on the ground, some members of Congress are pushing for forms of entanglement that could be truly devastating.

Several politicians have become enamored with the idea of a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine. Sens. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Roger Wicker (R–Miss.), as well as Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R–Ill.), have all publicly advocated for a no-fly zone. Proponents of the measure fail to mention that a no-fly zone must be enforced somehow, or at least decline to engage in a realistic discussion about how disastrous a direct shooting war with Russia would be. Downing Russian planes would only serve to escalate tensions and entangle more military powers in the conflict in Ukraine.

When polled by Quinnipiac last month, Americans overwhelmingly favored a cautious approach to U.S. assistance for Ukraine. Three-quarters said the "U.S. should do whatever it can to help Ukraine, without risking a direct war between the U.S. and Russia." A YouGov/CBS News poll in late February showed 71 percent of Americans oppose a troop deployment to Ukraine, and more recent polls have garnered similar results. Though economic measures like sanctions are popular as ways to counter Russia, military action is not.

"Senator Coons is a close friend of the president's and the administration, and we just respectfully disagree with his proposal," said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, in a briefing yesterday. "The president has no plans to send troops to fight a war with Russia. He doesn't think that's in our national security interests."

It isn't, and it's deeply concerning that many politicians continue to downplay the unavoidable risks of military engagement. Interventionist members of Congress won't be the ones to bear the potentially catastrophic brunt of the policies they're pushing. Those costs will be borne by the American people—and they've made clear that they're uninterested in taking them on.

NEXT: Kentuckians Left Without Abortion Access After Lawmakers Override Governor's Veto

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is there a line that Russia could cross that would make us take an active role in the fight? What is Russia uses chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? What if they attack a NATO country? What if they set up extermination camps?

    1. Ukraine is not a NATO country.

      1. Hush. He’s trying to get his war-boner going.

        1. I give up my job and now. I make $120 an hour operating from home doing those easy chores on line. I make $30,000 a month operating on line three hours a day. (hju15) I recommended you to strive. You may not lose anything, simply attempt it on the subsequent internet site and earn each day...
          .
          For extra details:>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

      2. If it were it wouldn't be a "what if" question, no would it?

      3. Nor is Ukraine a libertarian democracy. During past Eurowars, These States did a land-office business selling weapons to both sides on a cash basis. Twice Uncle Sam was suckered into extending them credit and both times the borrowers (except for Finland) welched on their loans and dragged us in. Youropeens, like the U.S. Kleptocracy, are seriously hooked on the initiation of force as panacea. Letting them get their fill while we bet on outcomes could easily be the best approach.

    2. You should go over there and fight.

      1. We can take up a collection toward that end.

        I see no down side to MG going.

        1. Would you want that fool in your unit?

          1. It's no my unit; but no fear, the Ukrainians will take care of it.

            1. I guess they could use him to clear minefields.

              Once anyway.

              1. Or at least one mine; the asshole could repay the world for the wasted oxygen.

        2. I see no down side to MG going.

          It's a shreek sock, so I would have some level of concern for any prepubescent Ukrainian children in his vicinity.

    3. Is there a line that Russia could cross that would make us take an active role in the fight?

      And by "us", you mean neocons, neo-imperialists, and war mongers like yourself? You no doubt like to engage in war because all that death and destruction makes you horny.

      For libertarians, on the other hand, only a direct attack on US soil would be sufficient justification for involving the US military.

      1. Libertarians might well go fight on Ukraine's behalf, but individually. No libertarian would ever support slavery, which is what conscription is, and also includes forcing everybody in the country to support sending the US military there.

        1. Exactly. If you care enough, head on over and good luck!

        2. I'm a libritarian, and I would support conscription all of the people that vote to send troops over, and their children. Perhaps if the "elite ruling class" had skin in the game they would be better then they are

    4. We won't have enough troops to do that without restarting the draft.

      1. I'm pretty that's the whole point behind advocating for direct US intervention.

      2. Since minorities are already overrepresented in the military, they can just draft white boys.

      3. Draft? Taiwan bristles with nuclear weapons and none dare invade. Ukraine could offer to buy some 20th Century armaments and pass its own "keep and bear arms" amendment for pretty good security. Enslaving Americans violates the 13th Amendment.

    5. If they attack us. That's it period. The only line.

    6. What if they started fucking little kids and posting child pornography links at Reason.com like you did, shreek?

    7. Try signing up as a soldier of fortune, they may be accepting drag queens now.

    8. Is there a line that the Democrats could cross that would make us take an active role in the fight?
      What if they seize protesters bank accounts? What if they set up extermination Covid camps? What if they imprison protesters and dissidents indefinitely without trail? What if they purge the military? What if they seize control of social media in order to censor their opponents? What if they castrate young children for ideology? What if they banned any discussion of election fraud? What if they called a bog standard DC protest an "insurrection"? What if they impeached a president on evidence that clearly and obviously exonerated him, twice? What if a President used the Director of the FBI, the Deputy Director of the FBI, the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Justice Department and the State Department to gather dirt on members of the opposition political party in an effort to ensure his former Secretary of State wins the Presidency?

      The difference between my "What if's" and yours is that mine actually happened.

      1. "...mine actually happened."

        It sounds kinda bad when you say it like that.

    9. "What is Russia uses chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? What if they attack a NATO country? What if they set up extermination camps?"

      LOL. It's a what if party. None of that has happened. Let us know when it does. Here's one. What if a bullfrog had wings? It wouldn't bump it's butt!

    10. Note that only one comment actually answered the question you asked.

  2. Maybe the best strategy is for the US to provide juuuuuuuust enough support to prolong the war. And in the event of a Russian victory, we should back a Ukrainian insurgency. Because the more carnage Ukrainians witness, the more they'll want to immigrate to the US and provide cost-effective labor for billionaire employers like Reason.com's benefactor Charles Koch.

    And that's the most important thing. Right, Fiona? 😉

    #WarIsGoodBecauseItCreatesRefugees
    #CheapLaborAboveAll

    1. But they have the wrong skin color.

      1. All that matters is that they are desperate not to go home, so they'll work cheap and never quit their jobs for fear of losing their visa.

    2. I was expecting this puppet to suggest sending in troops as illegal immigrants to establish a fifth column...

  3. Chris Coons is a dangerous lunatic. Why hasn't Twitter banned him yet?

    1. Well, it appears he has 29% of Americans polled on his side. That is, they are on his side as long as it is someone's else's kin that has to go fight in Ukraine. I wonder what the poll would show if the questions was "Are you willing to pick up weapons and go with Sen. Coons to fight the Russians in Ukraine?"

    2. Chris Coons is a lackey of the Biden administration; this isn't stuff he is coming up with, it's Biden's handlers preparing the nation for a war with Russia.

    3. Christopher Coons. There are fewer names more un-pc than that.

    4. (D).

  4. Oh look! People criticizing Fiona's position on immigration because she.. *checks card* ..opposes war with Russia.

    1. you should have waited until people criticized Fiona's position.

      1. Here you go!

        Sending U.S. Troops to Ukraine Would Be a Massive Mistake

        Having Ukrainian troops migrate here on the other hand - Fiona

    2. Fiona has proven to be a dumb, uninformed, ignorant prick whose positions are best ignored completely.

      1. But I was somewhat surprised to see an article that wasn't about immigration!

        1. We've been hammering her nonstop in these comments. Sooner or later someone at Reason had to realize that the same article 3 times a week was not the best assignment strategy for their intern.

          Fiona's not a bad writer for a college kid, she is building a portfolio. I'm genuinely happy she's getting something to do that isn't repeating OBL's shtick.

          1. I think I actually literally recommended that they do this in her last article. So I to am happy they are giving her the opportunity to write something other than the immigration beat. No author looks good when that the only issue they cover.

            1. I was kind of under the assumption that her internship was funded by some NGO specifically for Pro-Immigration advocacy.

              1. I think it is. The Koch Foundation.

      2. Not true,her positions are best mocked vigorously for being so ignorant and one dimensional.

    3. For once, she managed to write an article without mentioning immigration.

    4. LEAVE BRITNEY FIONA ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      t. shreek

    5. Ya don't say, Gay.

  5. I don't want US troops in Ukraine, but not for any political reasons. After how badly we fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan, we have no business going into another country. We'd try to force our way of fighting, re-building, etc on the Ukrainians and they would hate us for it. Better to give them all the weapons they need and let them fight. If any NATO countries do get involved I would hope it would be the ones with the most interest in checking Russia, like Poland and the Baltic States.

    1. I don't want US troops in Ukraine, but not for any political reasons. After how badly we fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan, we have no business going into another country.

      That sounds like a "political reason" to me.

      1. No, its a reality reason. Everything we touched in both countries, under both parties, turned to shit. We tried to re-make them into US analogues without understanding their cultures or history. We don't need to be doing that again.

        1. I agree we shouldn't send US troops to Ukraine, but if we did I don't think it would be in an attempt to re-make the government like we did in Iraq or Afghanistan. It wouldn't be a regime change.

          1. It wouldn't be a regime change.

            No, that would be quite redundant since we already did that in Ukraine in 2014.

            1. Hell even that was more successful than Iraq or Afghanistan because we only tried to roll the regime back a few months, not a few decades

          2. Yes it would. The whole country is filled with Nazis - there's no way these people could let that stand short of just completely ignoring the reality of the place and culture and framing this as a black and white fight between good and . . . Oh my god

          3. Biden wants regime change in Russia, that's the reason for the sanctions and sending weapons to Ukraine.

            1. Biden wants his diaper changed and a strawberry yogurt snack. His handlers want regime change.

          4. Yes it would. We can't help it. We have to meddle.

    2. Ah, so you're cool with stealing from the American people to support a corrupt, totalitarian oligarchy abroad.
      Because muh liberty, right?

      1. You'd rather have the alternative where Russia gains more power? Interesting.

        1. You could have just answered "yes."

          1. Neoconlibs know they're full of shit, thus they avoid direct answers

        2. Yes, I prefer Russia gain more power (however the fuck you think that happens) from their war with Ukraine than sacrifice a single ounce of Americans' blood or treasure.
          What's interesting is that you're so resentful of Russia you're willing to throw Americans under the bus.

          1. It's hilarious watching these people turn into neo-McCarthyites when they spent the last half century defending Soviet communism and railing against NATO as a tentacle of American imperialism. Hyuck hyuck hyuck, can you believe Mitt Romney thinks Russia is a geopolitical adversary of America? What an out of touch old fucking boomer! Hyuck hyuck hyuck.

            1. It's hilarious watching someone as chronically illiterate and stupid as you attacking people who have been against war from the get go, simply because they don't buy Putin or Ukraine's bullshit.

        3. You'd rather have the alternative where Russia gains more power?

          Why should any American care? Come on, try to put together a coherent argument for once.

          Interesting.

          Yeah, "interesting" that you are siding with war mongers, totalitarians, and corrupt regimes.

          1. Anyone that thinks that Russia's declining power doesn't strengthen the Chinese knows nothing about history. A stronger Russia would be a good ally if we can get them to stop with the phishing scams.

      2. "Ah, so you're cool with stealing from the American people to support a corrupt, totalitarian oligarchy abroad."

        Nope, not supporting your BFF Putin.

      3. Don't know what sqrlvo said, but the syphilitic pile of shit would be better if he said nothing at all.

        1. Poor, poor asshole nardz really hates being called on his bullshit.
          Fuck off and die, steaming pile of shit.

      4. Hey, Nardz. We don't need to send troops to Ukraine.

        All we need to do is infiltrate this tough old bird into the Kremlin and she'll twist her cane around Putin's turkey throat:

        Auschwitz Survivor Has Brutal Message For Vladimir Putin
        https://www.ladbible.com/news/latest-holocaust-survivor-vows-to-outlive-vladimir-putin-20220420

        Metro reports Anastasia Gulej said she has been forced to live through horrific atrocities in the past and Russia's invasion in Ukraine won't stop her.

        "I survived Hitler, survived Stalin and I will survive this a***hole Putin too!" she said. 🙂

    3. Good point. No sane country would want "our" Divided Kleptocracy minions practicing the initiation of force within their borders. Bolivia has for a century been trying to get rid of murdering prohibitionist meddlers the Kleptocracy keeps sending there by vote of "both" entrenched looter parties.

  6. How about the US does not engage in combat unless there is a direct attack on us or a NATO country?

    Seems simple enough.

    1. How about the US does not engage in combat unless there is a direct attack on us or a NATO country?

      FTFY

      1. Not quite; the US remains a signatory to that treaty that very clearly stipulates that the 30 members come to the defense of any member that is attacked.

        Or are you saying that if France or Great Britain is attacked we say fuck off?

        1. Can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I would say France and Great Britain can fuck themselves, individually and collectively. NATO is a null and void treaty since the expansion of the Soviet Union is no longer possible as the Soviet Union does not exist. We have quite literally less than zero reasons to engage in nuclear combat with Russia and continue paying for the defense of 30 nations in Europe of which we have absolutely no shared cultural or geopolitical interests. Fuck them. Every single one.

        2. France? Yes. Same with Germany.

        3. Or are you saying that if France or Great Britain is attacked we say fuck off?

          Yes, that's what I'm saying. Europe is bigger and wealthier than the US; let them pay for their own defense; and Europeans are responsible for the mess in Ukraine in the first place.

          Not quite; the US remains a signatory to that treaty that very clearly stipulates that the 30 members come to the defense of any member that is attacked.

          If you read the treaty carefully, it doesn't actually obligate us to do anything in particular. It's more of a license to act on behalf of other nations if we choose to.

          Nevertheless, we should leave NATO so that there is no further confusion on this point. NATO was marginally useful during the Cold War; there is no justification for the treaty anymore.

          1. That I agree with; if we have no intention of honoring the treaty, be it explicit or strongly implied obligations, we should nullify it.

            Which however, is not to say that we do not live in a dangerous world any more. But I also agree that Europeans should have been funding their own defense a long time ago.

        4. Who in their right mind would want to give up so valuable and valorous a libertarian ally as Vichy France?

          1. Let them eat cake

      1. The entire world is a NATO country.

        1. Try attacking Antarctica and see if Article 5 is invoked, smart guy.

          1. Given that Norway, France, and the UK claim large parts of Antarctica, an attack on much of Antarctica is an attack on NATO member territory.

            1. However, Article 5 specifically says "in Europe or North America". Which is why (for example) the Falklands War wasn't a NATO matter.

  7. It says something about politicians that juvenile bluster is so common among them.

    1. Coons isn't engaging in "juvenile bluster", he is engaging in propaganda for war, totalitarianism, and nationalism (that trifecta is also known as fascism).

      1. Floating the idea and seeing how it is perceived. It's fairly obvious to anyone who has studied history, especially American political history. The President can't (or shouldn't) say these things, so he had someone at arms length say it, sees how the public reacts, and then endorses or distances himself from it. Considering it's Biden we're speaking about, it's probably someone else doing this level of thinking, but the principle is the same. The know the continued war in Ukraine isn't helping their cause, and they are trying to figure out how to escape from under it. With Russia's new offensive, and the very real likelihood that Mariopul is about to fall, they're testing out strategies. The fact that they consider war a good strategy is extremely disconcerting.

        1. Since we're all friends here we'll just pretend like you haven't spent every day of the last 2 months agitating for US military involvement in Ukraine and castigating anyone who isn't as stupid and jingoistic as you as being a Russian disinformation bot and Putin apologist.

          1. That has never happened once, dipshit. I have been consistent in opposing war from the get go. I also have never once called anyone a Russian bot. I have called out both Biden and his lot, and Putin and his lot. I have called out disinformation from both sides. I have stated multiple times I don't think NATO serves any purpose anymore. You obviously have no fucking clue what is going on, and because I once said something you disagree with, you are mischaracterizing what I've stated in the past. You are as bad as Joe Friday and KAR-en and the other stupid proggie fifty centers. You're a fucking moron.

            1. No, you're actually a lying piece of shit. You bought into every single piece of yellow journalist Ukrainian propaganda, from the Ghost of Kyiv to the Snake Island martyrs to the Rooskie tanks with photoshopped Z's all over them, to the combat footage from Arma III, to the poor blown up babies from Syria in 2014. You held onto those lies and hoaxes long after they were debunked because you're a painfully stupid jingoistic sack of shit who desperately wanted them to be true so you could demonize Russia and rationalize your warboner. You have repeatedly called me, GG, and Nardz Russian bots and Putin apologists, and you have repeatedly called for US military involvement. I know you're a high school dropout who was so stupid he had to join the military, and couldn't hack it in a real combat role to get out your impotent adolescent rage and had to join the rear echelon, but here's a hint for you: the weapons and no fly zone you have repeatedly called for constitutes "military involvement", even if you eventually walked back your initial jingoistic ooh-rah shit about troops on the ground after the first month. I won't let you off the hook for that, and I won't let you continue lying about it. I'd still consider you a pig ignorant sub-literate brainless sack of shit regardless, but I'd have some tiny modicum of respect for you if you weren't a fucking piece of shit liar about it. Typical REMF online tuff gai cashing his VA checks, you can't just admit you were wrong and move on, because you have no character. Fuck you and every other stupid, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, sister-fucking welfare queen like you.

              1. Again you are making shit completely up. Not a single thing you've said is at all correct. Except, yes I was a POG/REMF whatever you want to label it. And proud of it. Never pretended to be anything else. I've called out Ukrainian propaganda a lot. I've called out Russian propaganda also. I've universally called out Biden and the dipshit neo-cons and have been opposed to war since last January. You won't find a single post by me ever calling for war. One of the biggest reasons I've opposed war, is my son is a fucking 19K, and I don't want him fighting in a war. I've stated that more times than I can count. You fucking don't know shit you jack come lately troll. Find one fucking post of mine supporting war with Russia. I fucking dare you.

              2. And I've never once called you a Russian bot. I don't even fucking know who you are. And I've never called either of the other two Russian bots. Not a fucking once. Not have I ever once posted anything jingoistic. I really think you don't even fucking know who I am. Because not a single fucking thing you've said is remotely true. And I honestly can't ever recall discussing anything with you before today. I've argued with both GG and Nardz, I've also argued at length with Joe Friday, Tony, MG, ChemJeff etc, who unsurprisingly have labeled me multiple times a Russian bot.

              3. Not that he needs my White Knighting, but Soldier has been pretty consistent with a rational analysis of the developments as they happen. He obviously has seen some time and speaks from experience while also having a vested interest in keeping his own son, in service, safe from any war-mongering administration. Do you have him mixed up with another poster here?

                Plus, right. Who are you? Is this a new moniker for a different poster? Might help if you identify your previous self.

          2. Apart from the libs who has been pushing for war?

          3. Second witness; that wasn't soldier.

            1. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I said several months ago a NFZ was the stupidest thing yet. Maybe he is from another multiverse, and doesn't realize which universe this is?

          4. Since we're all friends here we'll just pretend like you haven't spent every day of the last 2 months agitating for US military involvement in Ukraine and castigating anyone who isn't as stupid and jingoistic as you as being a Russian disinformation bot and Putin apologist.

            I suspect you're the only person who'll have to pretend all of that. If sm76 has done half of what you say he's done, I've not seen it, nor do I expect you'll be able to link to a comment of his that supports your assertions.

            1. Further:
              "...we are all friends here..."
              Who the fuck is this lying pile of shit? None of them are numbered among my friends.

    2. Politicians aren't the ones frogmarched into "conventional" warfare.

  8. This war would have been over weeks ago if the US/NATO had encouraged/forced Zelenski to negotiate in good faith. But clearly NATO doesn't give a shit about the civilian casualties they have helped to create. The neocons want this war to continue for as long as possible.

    1. We will sanction Russia down to the last Ukrainian.

    2. Our goal is to make Russia do what we did to ourselves for two decades.

    3. NATO US shouldn't have encouraged or forced anything. They should have stayed out of the whole issue.

    4. "...But clearly NATO doesn't give a shit about the civilian casualties they have helped to create..."

      Bullshit.

      1. Isn't it funny how decrepit, cowardly old pieces of shit like Sevo who ducked out of military service when they had they had the chance are so gung-ho to throw a few tens of thousands of American lives down the shitter in a backwater oligarchy whose only utility to America is laundering political donations?

        Why don't you go fire up your well-worn copy of The Longest Day, kick back with a half bottle of Viagra, and see if you can pop a half chub you demented old chickenhawk piece of shit.

        1. I'm betting you're one of the bro-vets with a long beard, and nine-line apparel, drinking fucking Black Rifle Coffee, who claims their service as a fucking mechanic in Kuwait made them some kind of operator. One can oppose war and Biden while also realizing Russia isn't the good guy either. It's really not hard for anyone who scored more than a 30 on their ASVAB to understand that.

          1. ROFL. It's hilarious how perfectly you've just encapsulated everything you are. I actually had better than a D- average in high school, so I didn't have to drop out and beg a military recruiter to send me off to a sandbox with the frustrated ambition of murdering women and children to save me from a life of working at McDonald's like you. You're welcome for the VA checks and the 7 years of GI Bill assistance it took you to get your AA when you got back from sorting crayons in a hangar in Kandahar.

            You could oppose war and Biden while realizing that Russia isn't the good guy, it's just that you didn't. You have supported war from the get-go, your only quarrel with Biden is that he's been too stingy with the weapons and has refused to shoot down Russian aircraft, and you have bought hook, line and sinker into the cartoon villainy of the yellow journalism rags and Military.com articles that constitute the few news sources that cater to your reading level. Which wouldn't be so bad if you could just admit you were wrong and that you changed your mind, but instead you lie about it because you have no character and your fragile ego would shatter if you had to acknowledge the reality of what you are: a mindless automaton so wistful for your salad days as a bootlicking, authority-worshiping REMF that got suckered by the lies and hoaxes of war-agitating yellow journalists into supporting a shooting war with Russia over a piece of shit oligarchy whose tangential connection to any American interest is laundering political donations for American congressmen and their paymasters.

            1. Bull fucking shit. You fucking 4 F fucking loser. Not a single fucking thing you've yet said about me is even close to being fucking true. And yeah I'm sure you had a higher than D- average (after all a D is higher than a D-). As for me, my MOS actually required some of the highest ASVAB scores of any MOS, I have a fucking MS and graduated from University Cum Laude on my fucking GI Bill, which I've also stated multiple times. I've even fucking given citations to my peer reviewed publications I've authored. But because I am not 100% go Russia, your simplistic mind equates me to being pro-Ukraine. Which is utter bullshit. Joe Friday calls me a pro-Putin bot, and you call me a pro-war neo-con Ukrainian bot. Because you both are so fucking incapable of abstract thought that you can't actually comprehend someone who is fucking neutral and only wants fucking peace. Fuck Biden, fuck Putin, and fuck you, you disingenuous fucking moron.

            2. So, you are everything you accused Sevo of being.

              It's called 'projection' and we're all really familiar with the tactic.

            3. "...You could oppose war and Biden while realizing that Russia isn't the good guy, it's just that you didn't. You have supported war from the get-go, your only quarrel with Biden is that he's been too stingy with the weapons and has refused to shoot down Russian aircraft, and you have bought hook, line and sinker into the cartoon villainy of the yellow journalism rags and Military.com articles that constitute the few news sources that cater to your reading level. Which wouldn't be so bad if you could just admit you were wrong and that you changed your mind, but instead you lie about it because you have no character and your fragile ego would shatter if you had to acknowledge the reality of what you are: a mindless automaton so wistful for your salad days as a bootlicking, authority-worshiping REMF that got suckered by the lies and hoaxes of war-agitating yellow journalists into supporting a shooting war with Russia over a piece of shit oligarchy whose tangential connection to any American interest is laundering political donations for American congressmen and their paymasters..."

              What a fucking rant, serving to justify this asshole's inability to notice that there are glaring differences between an aggressor and the victim of that aggression.
              Fuck off and die, shitpile.

          2. I'm betting he's a steaming pile of lying shit.

        2. "...are so gung-ho to throw a few tens of thousands of American lives down the shitter in a backwater oligarchy whose only utility to America is laundering political donations?"

          Yep, a lying pile of shit.
          Asshole, please offer one cite where I propose US involvement in ANY of our current military messes or this one.
          Just one, shitpile.

    5. NATO is a bureaucracy, and the goal of every bureaucracy is to expand.

  9. What happened to Nardz? He join the foreign legion or something?

  10. Sorting sheep and goats - MAGA and Libertarian posters - on their comments here demonstrates why the latter is forever doomed to irrelevancy - you may want to organize purely on free individual will based only on reaction to direct invasions, but opponents who want to kill you or take your land and house won't. As to the former, they delude themselves into thinking everyone else is part of a conspiracy, which of course they're not, and this frees them from any sense of responsibility for developing a coherent and serious position.

    What a wasteland this board is.

    1. Z

    2. "What a wasteland this board is."

      Don't blame others for your dualistic lack of nuance.

    3. The rooskies is a-gunna git us! They'z a-cummin' fer yer house!

      Here's a serious position for you, sarcasmic: you are a self-confessed drug addict, alcoholic, child-abusing, low-life, unemployable piece of shit who would be homeless without your welfare benefits. Your life has no value anyway, so if you feel so strongly about them thar rooskies a-cummin' fer yer house, feel free to hop on a plane. They're so desperate that they'll even hand an obviously inebriated clueless fucking boomer like you a rifle. Those of us who are not neo-McCarythites and are not led around by the chode by the latest pro-war yellow journalism will be happy to watch you get your brains splattered all over the holy Ukrainian dirt to save us from the rooskies.

      1. Good Lord; who were you before this latest incantation of vileness, any way?

        Never mind, muted posters just show up as a meaningless gray box. My advice to anyone else here is to save themselves the trouble and do the same.

        1. Yep, this asshole isn't even worth a gray box, but that's what s/he gets.

        2. Yeah, I'd say it's obvious this guy is just trolling. He may also need to work out his anger issues before he hurts himself. Is he off his meds? Or could it be nardz on a bender?

          1. You must be one of sarcasmic's airbnb "friends"

      2. Sorry, not me Kip, but if you're interested in a serious discussion of the Ukrainian war, I'm game. Of course you're here, so unlikely.

        By the way, since the 60's I've opposed every war the US has entered from the beginning, except Afghanistan which is where Bin Laden was hiding out. How about you?

    4. As to the former, they delude themselves into thinking everyone else is part of a conspiracy

      You are projecting your own paranoid thought patterns onto others.

    5. "...you may want to organize purely on free individual will based only on reaction to direct invasions, but opponents who want to kill you or take your land and house won't."

      Well, yes. It's fairly obvious there are differences between defenders and invaders. One stays home and the other comes to visit.
      If and only if Russia attacks the US will I support your warboner for WW3. Just because your favorite politicians launder money abroad is not sufficient reason to send other people off to die.

      1. Bingo.

      2. "but opponents who want to kill you or take your land and house won't."

        They're already here, and we've remained peaceful far too long.

    6. Ooooo! Pick up on the prohibitionist patriachy's Prophet of Gloom! Once it was clearly demonstrated that any who attack these States and turn down the offer to accept unconditional surrender get baked into Trinitite, all attacks on These States and their islands stopped. That was 77 years ago. Ukraine now regrets following that good example. "Irrelevant" libertarian spoiler votes did away with conscription. So there's another example Ukraine could put to good use.

  11. These interventionists seem to think that, because nuclear weapons haven't been used for over 75 years they never again will be.
    Reminds me of the French who, in 1940 assumed that the new war would be fought just like WWI.

    1. Reminds me of the French who, in 1940 assumed that the new war would be fought just like WWI.

      Shit, we still have to remove our shoes and throw away our travel toothpaste at the airport because an FBI plant tried to light his shoes on fire 20 years ago.

  12. https://twitter.com/Snakeeater36/status/1516210733335433220?t=sHUEfToxhObo4EbqbShFWQ&s=19

    Oh so he’s not a reporter. He’s a combatant, wearing the US flag.

    Huh….

    [Link]

  13. Hey kids, who wants to fight another 20 year war with no clear goal for winning?

    1. Sevo, all of sarcasmic's sockpuppets, all of shreek's sockpuppets, and remf76 can all answer in the affirmative

      1. Fuck you, no one but the voices in your head said anything close to that. You can't find a single post by either Sevo or myself calling for war. You are a new poster, who no one has ever heard of, who has no fucking clue what you're talking about. In fact, both Sevo and I've consistently been against a war with Russia from the get go. But we also blame Putin for invading another country. There's a fucking difference, if you had above an 8th grade reading level you would understand this. And calling me a REMF as an insult isn't an insult. I am proud of my service, for the most part. I actually saved people's lives (I was a combat life saving instructor, and never have claimed to have served in combat, once). You think it's an insult because you read it one time in a book (based on your posts it was probably a coloring book) but don't actually understand what it means. Hell, I called you a bro-vets above, but that's an insult to actual bro-vets, instead you're one of those who humble brags "I almost joined but I was to smart, and would have punched a drill sergeant".

        I usually don't ask people to cite my previous posts, but find one single time I've called for war with Russia. I've posted probably close to a 1000 posts on Russia since January, so it shouldn't be to hard to find one post where I've called for war with Russia. Come on, big guy, prove me wrong. And I'll fully admit I was wrong if you can. I'm not worried because I never have.

        1. "...But we also blame Putin for invading another country. There's a fucking difference, if you had above an 8th grade reading level you would understand this..."

          You might be generous; 5th grade should have done the job.
          This is the simplemindedness which got us Biden; 'there's really no difference between...'

        2. Im betting this is KAR

          1. It almost sounds his level of stupidity, but I can't see KAR making the pro-Russia argument or anti-war when the left is so for war. The level of discourse is almost the same, but the political side is all wrong. Maybe that little Nazi apologist Rob Misek?

            1. Don't have either one muted, so either could post as a sock. Regardless, per QUT (above) I've muted this pile of shit.

            2. Nah! Rob Misek evidently thinks that the Holocaust was a lie, that even people who lie in fishing boats or for surprise parties should be prosecuted, that people have a First Amendment right to free expression on other people's property, that LGBTQ+ people can be changed with Joseph Mengele methods, and that non-sapient animals make choices.

              Kip Bucaram hasn't yet shown this particular flavor of irrationality and evil. He just makes the shittiest excuses for The Vatican and The Roman Catholic Church's sexual and physical abuse of children.

              They can both Fuck Off though in their own respective Nazi and Pope-Worshipping poisonous essences!

              By the way, leaving aside our own theological and wargaming differences, I respect and salute your Service, Soldiermedic76!

              To me, every day is Memorial Day for the Fallen and every day is Veteran's Day for evey Serviceperson I encounter. All the best to you and yours and may we never again have to use the Armed Services even for it's legitimate role. 🙂

          2. Also, nothing about genocide against Mormons, so it can't be KAR. He has to mention killing Mormons at least once when he tries to troll me.

    2. Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box!

  14. I don't recall Coons (or other Democrats) urging Biden to give Ukraine the 28 MIG jets that Poland has offered, Zelensky requested, and Biden has refuse to allow for the past month (because he is afraid of Putin).

    1. Biden's more afraid of a giant wabbit.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtqiLobIJnU

      1. God, that is a bad fucking video. He acts like he doesn't even understand what's going on.

        1. Act like? He really has no idea what's going on. This is the guy who shakes hands with ghosts. This is the guy who said "America is a nation that can be defined in a single word: ahwazinnafoothiminnawhu".

          1. Biden's the guy who kicked Trump's ass in two debates and knows more about the nation and the world than any president in at least 60 years.

            As to being scared of Putin, aren't we all, and if not, what is wrong with you? We are all still alive at his whim. During the Soviet Union's post Stalin era, there was always the Politburo in charge, not one single guy, and if whoever was "in charge" - Brezhnev for instance - would have been reined in if he even thought about nuclear war. Stalin did not have nuclear weapons enough to end the world (nor Hitler). US Presidents would likely be checked if they went to crazy town - but not Putin. He is the guy out on the ledge with the globe tied around his ankle. First time in history we all stay alive at the whim of one man. Who isn't afraid?

            1. Biden's the guy who kicked Trump's ass in two debates and knows more about the nation and the world than any president in at least 60 years.

              Biden has been an incompetent, corrupt, vain, angry nincompoop for all of his career. I despised that man even when he was still a Democrat.

              As to being scared of Putin, aren't we all, and if not, what is wrong with you?

              I don't see any reason to be "scared of Putin". Putin has no interest in the US and gains nothing by attacking the US. Putin has been consistent for two decades about what he wants and what he is willing to do to get it, and as far as I'm concerned, he can have it.

              US Presidents would likely be checked if they went to crazy town - but not Putin. He is the guy out on the ledge with the globe tied around his ankle. First time in history we all stay alive at the whim of one man. Who isn't afraid?

              Biden is going to "crazy town", and Biden is risking global nuclear war by continuing to provoke Putin, Xi, and others.

              1. It's Joe Friday, what do you expect? Actual insight and self reflection?

                1. You're quite a pair, you and NOYB2.

                  So, Biden is "provoking" Putin? You guys are geniuses!

                  Of course neither of you can dispute the fact that Putin is the 1st man in world history who probably has the power to end it. We can argue about whether he has worked himself out on a ledge with no exit ramp and no likelihood of success for Russia, but for most of us this is self evident. For "libertarian" crackpots, things come slower.

                  1. And you would be mistaken. Putin hasn't been able to get his hands on Ukraine when he thought it would be a cakewalk; what makes you think he would be a threat to the U.S.?

                2. Right soldier, I'm Joe Friday, the guy you don't have the nuts to argue with. Last I saw you was when you tried to spin the fact that both red and blue states were being led in new Covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by unvaxxed idiots, even though they were a minority of the population in both places. Rightly you didn't deny that fact but tried to make it palatable for the MAGA crowd and the ignorant anti-vaxxers who predominate here.

                  Anytime.

                  1. You mean when you covered your ears and screamed louder when people tried to explain things to you?

                    1. Why don't you explain that fact to me Salted? Both red and blue states were being led in new Covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by unvaxxed idiots, even though they were a minority of the population in both places.

                      I don't cover my ears and I don't run like soldier.

                    2. @Joe Friday

                      The simple fact that the vaccines were not as effective as you and your Democrat overlords claimed to be. At best it provides some protection to those who hadn't contacted COVID; eventually vaccination percentages were high enough in the population to the point that most hospitalizations ended up being among the vaccinated.

                      But sure, just continue with the straw man deflections, propaganda spins and projections instead of properly listening to what people like Salted Nuts have to say.

              2. US Presidents would likely be checked if they went to crazy town - but not Putin. He is the guy out on the ledge with the globe tied around his ankle. First time in history we all stay alive at the whim of one man. Who isn't afraid?
                -------
                Like when we bomb countries half the world away for decades on end?

                1. Elvis, so does Putin, but what Putin has that US Presidents don't, is any kind of check process for sending nuclear warheads.

                  Think about it. You comfortable with that?

                  This highlights what may be the fatal flaw in our - the human race - otherwise very smart, adaptable, and powerful ability to survive and flourish. A single human - Hitler in the recent past - can take us on a very destructive trip and we are at the mercy of his whims. If they are megalomaniacs - likely, to get where they are - they may reason the world without them is not worth saving and FUCK IT ALL - and we may be fucked. It's not a good system. Putin may be that guy and he does have more power in that regard than any human in world history.

                  1. Sorry, Elvis, meant to type that Putin DOESN'T have the same check process that US President's have.

                  2. Elvis, so does Putin, but what Putin has that US Presidents don't, is any kind of check process for sending nuclear warheads.
                    You'd be mistaken seeing the amount of executive orders the U.S. has had involving war.

                    Think about it. You comfortable with that?

                    Seeing as Putin is having trouble taking Ukraine, I'd say so.

            2. "Biden's the guy who kicked Trump's ass in two debates and knows more about the nation and the world than any president in at least 60 years."

              Holy shit; not even the NYT, on it's most outrageous day, could make that claim with a straight face.

              Seriously, what do they [the DNC] pay you for posting this nonsense?

              1. First debate:

                How respondents rated each candidate’s debate performance and their answers on policies
                PERFORMANCE POLICIES
                CANDIDATE GOOD POOR GOOD POOR
                Trump 32.9% 66.2% 39.1% 57.4%
                Biden 59.7 39.1 56.6 39.2
                Only among respondents who said that they had watched some or all of the debate.

                https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-debate-poll/

                Second debate:

                "Most registered voters said that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden performed better than President Donald Trump during the second presidential debate, according to a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released Friday.

                Fifty-four percent of voters who watched the Thursday debate said Biden performed the best, while 39% said that Trump did. Eight percent of voters who watched weren’t sure or had no opinion on who did best. "

                https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/24/biden-beat-trump-second-presidential-debate-majority-says-poll/6025522002/

                Debate expert's agreed that Biden won both debates.

                1. We may also note that A) Trump is an asshat on stage and B) both debate moderators displayed clear favoritism and softballed Biden.

                  1. BS Salted. Biden doesn't need softballs - he knows what he's talking about.

                    Trump doesn't, and he tried get by on personal accusations, you know like most the ignorant posters here do.

                    1. BS Salted. Biden doesn't need softballs - he knows what he's talking about.
                      Once again, you are mistaken:
                      https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/joe-biden-tossed-softball-questions-in-first-half-of-abc-news-town-hall/amp/
                      https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/cnns-town-hall-with-biden-was-a-softball/

                      Not very indicative of the nonsensical proclamation you spouted out.

            3. I'm not afraid. Putin hasn't even learned tbe Goddamn history of his own country's dealings with Napoleon and he's making the same logistical mistakes as Napoleon. Putin has fogotten that an military runs on it's stomach, as well as fuel and munitions and the supply chain that provides it.

              Moreover, Putin is making the same mistake as all Empire-Builders: He has no exit strategy!

              Putin can't pull back without losing that precious commodity of The East known as "face," yet he has to keep spilling his best blood and treasure into maintaining his position and the "face" that comes with it.

              Nope, even if the worst case scenario comes and we are dragged into NBC war, Putin still ultimately won't win. And we U.S. Citizens don't even need to fear NBC war if we practice individual and household preparedness as per the wise counsel of the late Physicist Dr. Petr Beckmann.

              Our Founders didn't flinch at risking their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in the face of Half-Lifed Uranium from the world's biggest Empire of their day. Full-Life Uranium doesn't change the principle.

      2. I'd sure like to know who was in that suit; a staffer no doubt, just doing their job of diverting Sleepy away from reporters to prevent another off script rant.

        1. OK Bob, we're gonna need you to dress up as the Easter Bunny and make sure the president doesn't embarrass himself too badly.

          Bob: How the fuck did we end up here?

          1. After this administration is finally out, someone is going to write a tell all; and what you just posted is going to be chapter 3; the things we had to do to keep the facade from completely slipping.

            1. It was some coms intern/staffer.
              She even tweeted a joke about it last night.

              1. Biden HAS dementia; this is the problem.

      3. It's the Jimmy Carter Rabbit Attack all over again! 😉

    2. I don't recall Coons (or other Democrats) urging Biden to give Ukraine the 28 MIG jets that Poland has offered,

      That's not how it works. Rather, Biden's handlers told Coons to float the trial balloon of fighting Russia directly to see how Congress and the American people react. Biden's neocon handlers really, really want regime change in Russia and they really, really want to seize the resources currently controlled by Russian oligarchs.

    3. Give? As in send the IRS to make us pay for them jets, then watch the Kleptocracy "give" them away?

  15. I don't understand, Harrigan. I thought national borders didn't mean anything any more? So why are a few more immigrants to Ukraine a problem all of a sudden.

    They're currently having their culture enriched through Russian immigration . . .

  16. There are videos of the women and children in the shelter beneath that factory in Mariupol. They are alive today. They won't be alive in the near future, because the Russians will kill them.

    We could have prevented that. But we choose not to, because it would inconvenience us slightly. Maybe.

    1. How the fuck could we have prevented that? How?

      1. By not expanding NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union, among other things.

        1. Okay granted, but that's water under the bridge. I was assuming the poster was referring to something more recent.

          1. Well, I mainly wanted to remind him of the origin of the current problems.

            But the solution to the current problems is still the same: stop interfering in the Ukraine/Russia war, stop sending weapons into an active war, stop provoking Russia.

            1. "Well, I mainly wanted to remind him of the origin of the current problems."

              So expanding a treaty area "caused" Putin to invade Ukraine?
              Can't possibly be Putin's nostalgia for the USSSR, his desire to expand the Russian borders and figuring this was a good time to do so, right?
              Last I heard, the devil made him do it.

              1. Expanding NATO was a bad idea, and it certainly didn't prevent this war. I'm not sure NYOB is saying it forced Putin to invade, just that if it hadn't happened, like we originally agreed to, that maybe Putin may not have invaded. I'm not sure he is correct, because it's trying to prove a negative outcome, but I can sympathize with the idea that our continued push and adversarial relations to Russia and Putin have been at best counterproductive. I'm not sure, once Ukraine turned to the west, anything could have prevented the war, but then you have the whole debate about how much or little influence did the west have on Ukraine's turn to the west. In the end, two things are obvious, Putin invaded a sovereign nation to exert his wishes on it (yes, just like we did in Iraq and Libya and several other countries, which we wrong to do, also) and the US has no vital interest to fight a war with Russia over. I'm more concerned about the latter than the former of those two truths.

                1. US politicians have vital personal interests in Ukraine. We also, apparantly, have strategic bioweapon labs there.

                  With the US outsourcing cheap labor and dirty science all over the world, we're going to wind up in a war sooner or later over it.

                2. Bad as the Iraq war was, and on false premises, we did not invade Iraq to grab territory and we never invaded Libya but sided with an actual revolution with popular support. There is no comparison between those actions and Putin's pure power and territory grab. Soldier is an ignorant fuck.

                  1. And yet again Joe, you are wrong.

                    The U.S. did infact invade Libya:
                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

                    Differing motives for invasion of another country doesn’t justify the start of war on the part of the invaders.

    2. No one is stopping you from getting on a flight over there and helping.

      When you're done there are some people in Cartel controlled Mexico that need saving. The some Cubans, some North Koreans, lots of Uyghurs, most of west Africa, . . .

      But for me - I spent 21 years in the military. I'm tired.

    3. We could have prevented that.

      Yes, we could have: by not expanding NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union.

      1. Or by allowing Russia to join NATO when it asked.

        1. That probably would have been a better idea, and it would have produced a strong counterweight on the Asian continent against China.

          1. NATO's purpose is to destroy Russia because their nukes inhibit the WEF/Davos/NWO ambitions for global totalitarian tyranny, and also as revenge for the fall of the USSR.
            NATO is the attack dog of the most evil people who have ever existed, and they are the true enemy of the American people.

            1. "NATO's purpose is to destroy Russia because their nukes inhibit the WEF/Davos/NWO ambitions for global totalitarian tyranny, and also as revenge for the fall of the USSR.
              NATO is the attack dog of the most evil people who have ever existed, and they are the true enemy of the American people."

              Seek help, asshole. If you are capable of doing so.
              Or, fuck off and die; either one works.

            2. Literally die, sqrlvo, you bitter syphilitic piece of shit.

        2. Would have been a very good idea, assuming their word is worth more than the USSR's.

    4. https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1516506240385310721?t=x3B80Ee3Gk0OTyS8Tc9b9g&s=19

      Today is the 29th anniversary of the #MountCarmelMassacre, the attack and mass murder of 82 people in Waco, TX by the US federal government. Forty-six of the murdered were children. Key evidence was "lost" or destroyed, and no one has been held accountable.

  17. Disclaimer for anyone who believes otherwise, I'm perfectly willing, and actually enjoy debating anyone, especially if they don't agree with me. If I mute someone it is because they are a disingenuous fuck, who lacks any self awareness and only regurgitated talking points ad nauseam, and never posts an original fucking thought. If I wanted that, I would go read Vox (which I actually do occasionally read) or FoxNation (which I haven't read in over a decade). I love to debate intelligent people, I also love to poke fun at puerile arguments, but some people are simply incapable of forming a rationale thought that isn't spoon fed to them that it isn't worth the time to debate them. Some like to believe I've muted them because I'm scared of them. That's a sign of narcissism on their part. I only stated this because I see Joe Friday is on again, and so I unmuted him, and saw his claim that I won't debate him out of fear. I debate everyone on here, no matter what their ideology, you are one of about ten people I've muted Joe, you are in the same class as KAR who called for genocide of Mormons and Rob Misek, an actual Holocaust denier. It isn't fear Joe, it's that you are jejune and sophomoric and intellectually dishonest. Your posts are almost universally predictable, and almost word for word the same shit I could read on MSNBC or Salon. There's no point in debating you, because you simply lack the capacity to do anything but regurgitate talking points. I've only once seen an original thought from you that dared deviate from the leftist line. So, please feel free to falsely believe whatever you want, and deceive yourself, but I just wanted to make clear to everyone why you are a gray box to me. Carry on. Join us next time boys and girls, on the same Bar channel at the same Bat time.

    1. Apropos of absolutely nothing, other than it's the current 'work book' and a wonderful one:
      "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language
      How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World"
      By David W. Anthony
      Among other surprises, he makes the claim that since phonics of a language change predictably over time (has to do with ease of speech), it is possible to 'reverse-engineer' the vocabulary and speech of a dead language to at least some extent.
      And supports the argument very well indeed.

      1. Thanks, always glad for reading tips. I'm currently reading Fire and Fortitude by McManus, a battle history of the US Army in the Pacific 1941-1943. So far I've only learned that McArthur was as big an egomaniac as I thought, made Patton and Montgomery look like pikers, (possibly only de Gualle rivaled his narcissism) and he treated his supporters extremely shitty so he didn't have to share the spotlight but he did adjust his strategies eventually. Oh and his plan to stop the Japanese on the beaches of Luzon was completely unworkable and he should have stayed with OP3 plan, which he eventually had to fall back on, without the built up logistics that would have been available on Bataan and Corregidor if he hadn't changed the defense plan.

        1. Really have wanted to study the Army in the Pacific theater, because I knew the Army carried more weight than the Marines did, but somehow the Marines always get the credit and glory when the Pacific is discussed. Also, my Dad had an Uncle who is still listed as MIA flying the hump.

        2. Mac gets roasted but then respect in nearly all the books regarding the Pacific theater; horribly narcissistic personality, but protective of his troops; shoulda' been courts-martialed after ignoring the clear warnings from HI and getting the B-17s destroyed on the ground, but PI didn't get PH's coverage and we needed every General we had. And so forth.
          Think it was Frank ("Downfall") who pointed out 'his finest hour': As 'proconsul' of Japan, he asked for rice, as the Japanese government had ignored the blockade and starvation was imminent. Congress refused aid.
          He replied: "We just recently hung several Japanese officials for starving our POWs to death. We must to better than that".
          And then blew it entirely in Korea.
          VERY complex character.
          But THX for the suggestion.

          1. Mac was an interesting character. He had moments of sure brilliance, In Chon may have been the most bold strategic and tactical decision any American commander has ever made, followed by complete blindness (often related to his narcissism that led him to surround himself with yes men, especially in intelligence settings). His ignoring the Chinese build up and offensive was also among the American militaries biggest fuck ups ever. He was a brilliant infantry division commander in WW1, and along with Patton's tank regiment showed how mass armor closely supported by mass infantry and coordinated walking artillery, would defeat dug in defenses, a state of affairs that still basically is the basis of modern ground combat (they also used the fledgling Army Air Corp in a tactical role really for the first time, but it's effectiveness at that stage is debatable). It's probably a good thing that Truman dropped the bomb though, because Mac was slated to be overall commander for the Japanese invasion while Patton was slated to be field commander, and while they worked well together in WW1 I don't see how those two could have gotten along in fall of 1945.

            1. Guderian and Rommel both studied Patton and Macarthur's tactics from WWI and borrowed heavily from them (one of the reasons the Germans feared Patton so much).

            2. "...He was a brilliant infantry division commander in WW1..."
              And WWII.

              "...It's probably a good thing that Truman dropped the bomb though, because Mac was slated to be overall commander for the Japanese invasion..."
              And for many more reasons; if you haven't read Frank's "Downfall", you should. Easily ten-to-twelve books on the shelves regarding use of the nukes and "Downfall" makes it clear that the use of the nukes was, simply the most humane alternative to ending WWII.
              Until the shitbag got muted, I asked Tony every summer what possible alternative would have ended the war with fewer casualties; 'having the allies surrender to Japan' was his only direct response, which of course, allowed the war on eastern and southeastern Asians to continue.
              Frank doesn't explore that bit of idiocy, but looks at most all the others.

              1. One quibble, he wasn't a division commander in WWII, he was a theater commander, and his first two forays left some to be desired, Philippines and the Papua. He seemed to come into his own after that. And a lot of that was he spent most of the Papua campaign in Port Moresby and never visited the front himself. The rest of the New Guinea campaign was textbook, including probably the best use of airborne troops in any theater during WWII.

                1. I know he wasn't, but he should have been; sorry for the 'clever comment'.
                  His extra-effort in PI should also have been called, but by that time he was a media figure much as Halsey and equally do a military critique as opposed to FDR's (circling the drain) political decisions

              2. And I agree, an invasion of Japan would have been far more devastating for everyone than the two bombs. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo caused more casualties than either of the atomic bombs.

        3. And now I see that the bookshelf is gonna groan under two new books; that and "Island Infernos: The US Army's Pacific War Odyssey, 1944".
          Gotta ask; does he deal with Smith/Smith re Saipan?

          1. Saipan is in the second book. So I'm not sure. He does a number on Dewitt and his part in getting Brown canned during Attu. Brown actually knew what was wrong before they even landed at Attu, but DeWitt assured everyone Attu was going to be a three day walkover, so he had to get Brown fired or admit he fucked up. Buckner and Kincaid hardly looked better in that affair, Kincaid's biggest fuck up was in listening to Buckner and DeWitt and not talking to Brown before he relieved Brown. Thing is Buckner's choice to replace Brown didn't even arrive until after the battle was nearly finished, and won, following Brown's strategy. The whole Aleutians campaign was a total fuck up that really didn't have to occur. We could have blockaded Attu and allowed the Japanese to starve. Attu and Kiska were completely meaningless other than for publicity sake.

            1. Also DeWitt estimated Japanese forces as 500 personal, mainly on the beach. Brown, based solely on Photo recon, estimated them at 2200 dug in on the high ground, Japanese records showed their were 2500 dug in on the high ground. Brown eventually did get another field command, in Europe, but not until spring of 1945.

              Also the part about the 25th infantry and the Americal Division at Guadalcanal was interesting. Most history books don't mention the fighting after the 1st Marines were relieved other than to list it as clean up. But the 1st Marines were mainly on the defensive during their part, it was left to the two Army Divisions to change over to offensive against dug in Japanese on the high ground. And one thing the Japanese excelled at was their defensive works.

              1. "...Most history books don't mention the fighting after the 1st Marines were relieved other than to list it as clean up..."

                Check Frank's "Guadalcanal"; more than a mention.

                1. Including 'Lightning Joe' Collins who had the rep of being a bit casual regarding troop losses.

                2. Man my reading list is getting long, but keep them coming.

                  1. Wonderful responses; enough for this evening.

    2. soldier, you vain creep, no one is that interested in your excuse for running from debates, anymore than we are for all your other multi-paragraph posts about your IQ, life story, etc.

      1. Just had to look: Yep, Joeasshole doing his best to look like a sentient human being and failing!
        Stuff it up your ass, Joeasshole and make the world a better place by fucking off and dying.

        1. Thanks for your always insightful comments Sevo.

          Blow me.

          1. At one's pleasure.

  18. Is there some reason they keep doing it the same size? This is what, the fourth or fifth time theyve given $800m (in addition to the $14b and $1b packages) in like a month.

    https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1516533933399232513?t=vfKqOwZDLxhi1_Uxwzy8Dg&s=19

    JUST IN - Biden administration is prepping another $800 million weapons package for Ukraine, NBC reports.

  19. Sqrlvo supports these pieces of shit.

    https://twitter.com/upholdreality/status/1516451872588152839?t=qs4zPLoUTMvZhD2ECXHGKw&s=19

    Gonzalo Lira (@realGonzaloLira): "If ever you don't hear from me for over 12 hours, assume I've been picked up by Ukranian SBU, and assume that the people most responsible are The Daily Beast." (@thedailybeast).

    Gonzalo has not been heard from in 3 days.

    [Link]

    1. https://twitter.com/ketchmeifucan/status/1516488650846093313?t=k5lRr4TyIMcVTeh2UlaspA&s=19

      People say that the Daily Beast “only” wrote a smear piece about Gonzalo Lira indicating his location. The Daily Beast ALSO contacted the Ukrainian government - despite the fact that it is known that political opposition is tortured & killed by their secret police - the SBU.

      [Link]

  20. Washington was already at war with Russia via Ukraine even before Russia invaded. The only things missing now are the brave men and women in uniform protecting our freedoms.

    To hell with Moscow and Washington.

  21. "Sending U.S. Troops to Ukraine Would Be a Massive Mistake"
    At this point, if Reason says "It would be a massive mistake to do X," I'll vote for X with both hands.

    1. And you would be responsible for unnecessary deaths in doing so in this case. The U.S. should only go to war if attacked on their own property.

      If you wanna help Ukraine, go out there and help. Good luck!

  22. I'm pretty sure that sending US troops won't lead to anything good, and it won't stop the war. It can actually turn this war into WW3, and that's definitely not the best outcome. Right now, we can only support Ukraine by providing material assistance and sending money to Ukrainian refugee relief and various organizations and hope that everything will be over soon. Unfortunately, it won't bring the war closer to the end, but at least it'll help Ukrainians get through this horror.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.