War in Ukraine

Yes. Ammo is very concerning.
I refuse to believe it. We and NATO may have allocated more than we would have liked to and more than we ever thought we would but absolutely no way are we in danger of running out of ammo and weapons. Especially the good stuff.

Edit: You know we have to plan for the worst case scenario. Leaving nukes out of the equation that would entail fighting the 2nd and 3rd world powers on two fronts. I believe we have the stores to do it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and AM64
Who wants to bet this conversation took place over the past week?

Biden Handler: Guys the American people are starting to question al the money we're sending over. We need to do something or the skim will end.
Putin: Bring potato head over to Ukraine and have him mumble some harsh words, make some threats and promise complete support. I'll give a speech too.
Zelinski: Yeah that sounds good, as long as the checks keep coming I'm in.
Biden Handler: Y'all will need to rattle some more sabers, Puttie what are you thinking? Moldova/Transnistria can you stir up some ish over that?
Zelinski: Yeah that sounds.......
Putin/Biden Handler: Shut up and just do as your told.
So just to be clear, your actual position is this is all being staged?
 
And English is a Germanic language but doesn’t resemble it at all and is its own language. Just like American Libertarianism is its own stand alone ideology and isn’t dependent on your socialism. Which I’m glad we’ve established you are a socialist now.

And finally you’ve failed to show again, like always, that the American Libertarian view on wages is socialist in any way what so ever. Your single brain cell got side tracked again, like it always does. So even though you were again having an argument nobody else was having you actually lost this one.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!! 😂🤡
You got to love when Donjo googles random **** to seem knowledgeable, but then ends up posting something completely incoherent because he has no idea what he’s talking about.

Still waiting on that India Pakistan military alliance.
 
Last edited:
You got to love when Donjo googles random **** to seem knowledgeable, but then ends up posting something completely incoherent because he has no idea what he’s talking about.

Still waiting on that Israel Iran military alliance.
I posted direct historical evidence where the terms libertarian came from. Dallas knows this and simply doesn't like it. And in typical fashion he throws one of his classic tantrums like a child. Keep in mind we are just at the very beginning stages of this and he will, as usual, further embarrass himself more.

I don't just "google" random crap. By the way it's Google not google. Mises, Cato, and Reason have all three wrote about Tucker and Spooner. That's 2 well known Libertarian institutes and a well known self proclaimed Libertarian publication.

Once again you guys are showing your laziness and resorting to attacks on the messenger and not the actual content.

And where the heck did I say anything about an Isreal-Iran military alliance?
 
I posted direct historical evidence where the terms libertarian came from. Dallas knows this and simply doesn't like it. And in typical fashion he throws one of his classic tantrums like a child. Keep in mind we are just at the very beginning stages of this and he will, as usual, further embarrass himself more.

I don't just "google" random crap. By the way it's Google not google. Mises, Cato, and Reason have all three wrote about Tucker and Spooner. That's 2 well known Libertarian institutes and a well known self proclaimed Libertarian publication.

Once again you guys are showing your laziness and resorting to attacks on the messenger and not the actual content.

And where the heck did I say anything about an Isreal-Iran military alliance?
After searching, I modified the post to say India/Pakistan. That’s what you actually suggested could happen. Because you’re that oblivious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
Your views on wages are socialist. You say you don’t want a mandated wage you just think employers should be forced to support a certain amount of wages. Those are your words I quoted the post. You’re unaware of your own views.

You claim those views are supported by the libertarian party. I show they clearly are not. In the last two POTUS elections both libertarian candidates said no to all federally mandated wage scales.

You’ve lost the original argument at this point so you pivot to the American libertarian party is actually socialist. Your basis is someone used a word = birthing a whole ideology. That person was a socialist. Ipso facto American Libertarianism is socialist. It isn’t. And your argument doesn’t support your conclusion. Again. Like always.

You’re now having a debate with yourself. In this process you admit you’re a socialist. (My original assertion)

You lose this argument after tripling down because it doesn’t support your conclusion.

In the end I was right. You’re a socialist. And you lost an argument you were having with yourself 😂🤡

Edit: I just stole this from BV as it directly applies to your argument with yourself. Which again you lost. Also BTW ipso facto also has its own logical fallacy. Its actuality called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. And your equality claim also falls in that category. A twofer fallacy for you!

View attachment 537863
Once again you failed to understand basic English and lack basic reading comprehension skills.

First of all anyone is socialist that would be you considering you support all the Democrat politicians at the national level in sending weapons and aid to your fellow socialists in Ukraine. And not just any type of socialists are you in support of sending weapons to. But this time you're in support of sending them to National Socialists over in Ukraine. And to top it all off you have stated multiple times how you are for censorship of media or anything you consider "propaganda". Nothing you support about this conflict is Libertarian in any way.

I never said anything about forcing anyone to do anything when it comes to paying higher wages. If you knew how to actually read you would learn this. You simply lost another debate and were proven wrong on a topic and resort to messenger attacks as always. I said people should be paid higher wages for their labor and should be up to the businesses and corporations to do this. This could be done without government and union involvement. What you didn't like is me simply saying people should be paid higher wages for their labor. People also have every right to try and negotiate a higher wage for themselves. Which I'm sure is something just about every one in this thread has done at one time in their career.

And yes Gary Johnson was a joke which is why he lost and has been even more irrelevant ever since. He was also a Republican many years before that and him and Bill Weld tried to jump on the Libertarian train for a bit in an attempt to stay relevant. They failed.

Johnson was also for mandatory vaccinations which is also against basic Libertarian principles.
 
After searching, I modified the post to say India/Pakistan. That’s what you actually suggested could happen. Because you’re that oblivious.
I did say that and yes it could happen. Wouldn't it make sense for them to form a friendly alliance somehow instead of being foes? The question I want to ask is why would you not want peace between the two countries?
 
7 Questions Everyone Should Be Asking About Ukraine

1) What’s the end game? If you say, “Ukraine wins and Russia loses,” that sounds nice, but how do we get there? Putin may perhaps correctly consider this as a war he has to win to survive. It doesn’t look as if sanctions are going to force Russia to give in. A best-case scenario would be Ukraine forcing Russian troops out of the country, but is that possible at all? If it is, then what? Ukraine certainly can’t go on the offensive and conquer Russia.

2) How much money are we willing to put into Ukraine? We’re in for over a hundred billion dollars in less than a year. Are we willing to go two hundred billion? 500 billion? A trillion? We’re spending an enormous amount of money on this and it’s entirely possible that the juice isn’t going to be worth the squeeze any more than it ultimately turned out to be in Afghanistan.

3) When does support for the war start to crater in the United States? We’ve seen the same pattern in war after war in America. When the war begins, it has high levels of support. Over time, it becomes a partisan issue and support for the war drops. Eventually, the war becomes a political hot potato, and we pull out, whether it makes sense at the time or not. In America, you can already see significant resistance to the war building up on the Right and it’s very possible that whoever the GOP candidate is in 2024 may be running on an anti-war platform or at least a “war skeptical” platform. So, how long does Ukraine have to “win?” Maybe not all that long and you can bet Russia is well aware of it.

4) How much of our money is being stolen? Huge amounts of US aid were stolen in Iraq and Afghanistan and given that Ukraine is one of the world’s most corrupt nations, it’s certainly being stolen there as well. In fact, we’ve already caught a government official stealing money. You can be certain that’s just the tip of the iceberg. How much of your money is going to end up in secret bank accounts belonging to Ukrainian officials? The smart money is on hundreds of millions, if not billions.

5) What are our strategic objectives at this point? We’re not talking about Britain, Israel, and Australia here. Ukraine isn’t an ally or a friend of America and they’re not in a crucial geographic location. Moreover, Russia is a hostile nation, but we’re not at war with the Russians. In other words, this is a very optional fight for us, so what are we trying to achieve?

According to the mainstream media/war propaganda we’ve seen, Russia’s military has already been heavily degraded in Ukraine, and given the unimpressive performance of their military, they’re clearly not a threat to invade any NATO nations. Additionally, we certainly don’t want to see the conflict go nuclear, which is unlikely, but possible if Putin gets his back against the wall. So, what do we ultimately want to get done? Are we willing to hold out any length of time and spend any amount of money just to get rid of Putin? If so, why so, given that he would probably be replaced by someone ideologically similar? What are we hoping to do here?

6) What happens if Ukraine loses? People seem to be starting with the assumption that since Ukraine is the “good guy,” they’re going to win in the end, but this is the real world, not a Tolkien novel, so it’s entirely possible that Russia will come out on top. Ironically, that might make the war less expensive and more sustainable on our end, because it’s a lot cheaper to supply IEDS and anti-tank rockets to insurgents than to supply a conventional force. However, if it happens, it could also be demoralizing enough that support for the war collapses and, of course, there is no guarantee a significant insurgency will form.

7) Are we willing to consider a peace treaty? Any politician in Ukraine who signed a peace treaty right now would probably be skinned alive by his own people, so they’re publicly going to be a hard “no,”, but we also get a vote because they can’t fight this war without us. Publicly, at least, we’re not making any effort to reach peace, but the longer this goes on, the more the momentum will likely shift to Russia. That means we may never have significantly more leverage to cut a peace deal than we do today. So, should we be talking about peace right now?
 
Your directly quoted only a small part of it. That's what people like you and Dallas do. Only take small chunks from a document or book and mold it into your narrative.

All I'm trying to prove is that they are a socially conservative party. That's it. Which is correct by the way. You, along with your pal Dallas, are simply trying to create an argument that never existed. Furthermore it's hard for you all to process new information because you both are too far set in your ways.
You complain when I post a 2000 word essay of my own typing. But you want me to copy a 200,000 word website? Seems a bit extreme and Freak tends to frown upon it.

And of course I am not going to quote the whole thing. Their platform is about far more than their social family planning, which is not socially conservative. So yes, I only quoted the relevant parts I found. That's what any reasonable debate revolves around, the relevant items. If you think their sections on reforming the USSR, modifying Stalin's purges and economy into a more modern communism are relevant you are free to quote them. I dont think they are relevant so I didnt quote them.

And no they arent socially conservative. I have been over it. Forcing everyone into their mold is not socially conservative. Family planning is not socially conservative. Their entire goal nationalism and production from the population after the failures of old communism.

I have provided quotes and links. You have provided nothing but your opinion. At this point it's on you to bring something new to the table to counter the quotes or the links. Which I will point out you never even bothered to try and counter argue or refute. You just went into your typical "woe is me, why wont you take my unsupported opinion as the gospel" spiel.

Deflect, duck*, dodge, and deflect.

Wake me up when you actually bring something to the table.

Oops, autocorrect actually made "duck" --> "f*&k".
 
I refuse to believe it. We and NATO may have allocated more than we would have liked to and more than we ever thought we would but absolutely no way are we in danger of running out of ammo and weapons. Especially the good stuff.

Edit: You know we have to plan for the worst case scenario. Leaving nukes out of the equation that would entail fighting the 2nd and 3rd world powers on two fronts. I believe we have the stores to do it.

I have my doubts
 
You complain when I post a 2000 word essay of my own typing. But you want me to copy a 200,000 word website? Seems a bit extreme and Freak tends to frown upon it.

And of course I am not going to quote the whole thing. Their platform is about far more than their social family planning, which is not socially conservative. So yes, I only quoted the relevant parts I found. That's what any reasonable debate revolves around, the relevant items. If you think their sections on reforming the USSR, modifying Stalin's purges and economy into a more modern communism are relevant you are free to quote them. I dont think they are relevant so I didnt quote them.

And no they arent socially conservative. I have been over it. Forcing everyone into their mold is not socially conservative. Family planning is not socially conservative. Their entire goal nationalism and production from the population after the failures of old communism.

I have provided quotes and links. You have provided nothing but your opinion. At this point it's on you to bring something new to the table to counter the quotes or the links. Which I will point out you never even bothered to try and counter argue or refute. You just went into your typical "woe is me, why wont you take my unsupported opinion as the gospel" spiel.

Deflect, duck*, dodge, and deflect.

Wake me up when you actually bring something to the table.

Oops, autocorrect actually made "duck" --> "f*&k".
And I asked you specifically where in their platform are they for what the democrat party here in the United States or what many of the left wing parties in Europe are trying to push? This includes such things as the LGBTQIA+ agenda, abortion, the breakdown of the traditional family, transgenderism, transhumanism, and green fascism. You can't provide it because it's not there in the platform. I never said they weren't authoritarian in any way. I just stated they were socially conservative. You're confusing socially conservative with politically conservative.

And being politically conservative doesn't mean "no government". I'm not sure where some of you are getting that idea from. You can't even quote any conservative politicians who said we should have "no government". No government would be anarchism. Which many early Libertarians had anarchist views.

The kind of government you want is one you feel benefits you above anyone else. That's called selfishness and greed.

By the way I did post two points from their platform already. Instead of talking about what I posted you went back to deflecting. That's what you do best. No wonder you don't have the attention span to watch an MLB game.
 
Nice attempt to dodge, but it isnt that easy. The West has been claiming for 6 months that Russia has been begging for weapons yet Russia continues a high rate of bombardment to this day. You might want to consider that when regurgitating that idiotic talking point.

I would say Russia is on their schedule. War never goes as anticipated. Russia made some miscalculations (as did Ukraine/the West). That is just part of it. Russia seems to have adapted better than Ukraine and is in a much better position currently.
Oh so they took the capital? Their 3 day mission. Right on schedule. Lmao
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Much of it. It’s not just the US MIC, US, Ukrainian and European elites getting rich off this. Putin is getting his share.
I mentioned before that Putin and Biden had a closed door meeting and phone and video calls not too long before this conflict started. Putin was also very friendly with Bush and Obama in the past.
 
All lot of projection here.

Korea: Draw
Bay of Pigs: Disaster
Vietnam: Disaster
Operation Eagle Claw: Disaster
Beirut: Disaster
Iraq: Unchanged
Afghanistan: Disaster
Syria: Unchanged
Ukraine: Disaster

Again, the Fall of Saigon and Fall of Kabul won't have anything on the Fall of Kyiv. Zelensky will either leave to Miami or London or end up like Ngo Dinh Diem.
Let's look at all that Russian "success"

Hungarian Revolution: killed a whole bunch of unarmed peasants. No military fight.
Invasion of Czechslovkia: took all of the Warsaw Pact to take down a nation Hitler was able to take peacefully, some more dead civilians. No military fight.
Afghanistan: just as big of a disaster as our attempt.
Ossetia: not resolved.
Transnistria: not resolved, not even formally recognized by Russia.
Nagorno: Russia had to default on their defensive alliance, CSTO, with Armenia because they couldnt afford to garrison the same 1500 troops against the world power of, checks notes, Azerbaijan. Not resolved, and reaching a boiling point again.
Syria: not resolved, still a mess.
Donbas, 9 years in and still dont even fully control the area.

Not sure why anyone should fear Russia's might when they cant even resolve military matters against countries a 1/10th the size of Ukraine.

Russia's only success has been in putting down unarmed people, which is why you guys are pissed that Ukraine is fighting back.
 
Lol, please cite any evidence what-so-ever of Russia ever offering to remove troops from Ukraine, and honor the 1991 borders that were reaffirmed in 1994, 1997, and 2003.

You may be on more blow than Zelensky if you think Russia giving up Crimea is a viable option. They would have possibly left most if not all the Donbas however. Crimea is long gone. Western Death Cultists need to accept that.
 

VN Store



Back
Top