War in Ukraine

#69,826
#69,826
So you're telling me the love letters with Trump weren't legit? I thought we were BFFs with North Korea after the totally awesome Trump diplomacy.

 
#69,827
#69,827
F3Ev74VXAAE8aFc
 
#69,829
#69,829
LouderVol said:
You realize Chamberlain gave Poland something like 9 million pounds and a bunch of equipment right?
that 9 million pounds is equivalent to almost 14 billion in today's dollars.
Click to expand...

Chamberlain giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 to appease him... how'd that work out in the long run?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#69,830
#69,830
hog88 said:
Almost 75 years of history proves me correct.

Keep licking the boots of those that have you bent over.
Click to expand...

Heh. 75 years of American intervention around the globe, you mean.

Or perhaps - once again - you're just proving your historical ignorance.
 
#69,831
#69,831
MontyPython said:
Heh. 75 years of American intervention around the globe, you mean.

Or perhaps - once again - you're just proving your historical ignorance.
Click to expand...

WTF are you trying to talk about? There has been zero invasions or attacks (by another state) on a nuclear armed country since nuclear weapons were invented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737
#69,837
#69,837
AM64 said:
Just put a fence up and let the Africans fight it out. Pre-colonialism didn't work, colonialism didn't work - although it did produce some resources, post-colonialism doesn't work - although some countries stayed peaceful long enough for non-African companies to make them semi-prosperous. Tribalism in all it's glory. Some things are apparently just not fixable.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That continent, by and large, is as Tribal as Afghanistan. No thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and tbh
#69,838
#69,838
MontyPython said:
Chamberlain giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 to appease him... how'd that work out in the long run?
Click to expand...
in the long run? As good as it could have.

I keep telling you and you keep forgetting the Allies COULD NOT have fought Germany in 1938 and won. The British Army was 1/3 the size it was when they lost France in 1940, the French Army was 1/2. They Allies were in absolutely no shape to fight the Germans.
Going to war in 1938 or 1939 would have likely resulted in both, not just the French, dropping out of the war officially.

and another thing I keep saying, if you are worried about the issues of appeasement that means you should be very worried about creating a Treaty of Versailles that just leads to the next/worse conflict. breaking up Russia, or taking too much away, can not be the end goal.
 
#69,839
#69,839
LouderVol said:
you realize that war isn't a movie or a video game right? it often drags on for a LONG time. which is what I have been saying for a long time.

we were bombed basically at the start of 1942 by the Japanese, D-Day wasn't until 2 years later.

people tend to forget that Ukraine is still the little guy. Expecting them to put together huge offensives that are going to crush a prepared Russia is a fools hope. Its always been long odds for Ukraine, and the aid from the west isn't nearly enough to push them to being favored enough to put in a western styled offensive. a rushed offensive could be just as damaging as an offensive by russia.
Click to expand...

Not only that, this is a World War I style war. No large amount of air support is available for either side because of the SAMs that both sides possess. IT will be slow going for either side now that both sides are dug in. Remember Bakmut for the Russians? Tons of casualties trying to take a small space of land. Now the roles are reversed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and LouderVol
#69,841
#69,841
LouderVol said:
in the long run? As good as it could have.

I keep telling you and you keep forgetting the Allies COULD NOT have fought Germany in 1938 and won. The British Army was 1/3 the size it was when they lost France in 1940, the French Army was 1/2. They Allies were in absolutely no shape to fight the Germans.
Going to war in 1938 or 1939 would have likely resulted in both, not just the French, dropping out of the war officially.

and another thing I keep saying, if you are worried about the issues of appeasement that means you should be very worried about creating a Treaty of Versailles that just leads to the next/worse conflict. breaking up Russia, or taking too much away, can not be the end goal.
Click to expand...

Before you come to Chamberlain's defense, don't forget he proceeded to get the big boot from the British people for his spineless shenanigans and - thankfully - they put a guy in charge who was willing to flex some major balls in Churchill.

Don't think for a minute that Putin wouldn't take every single ex Soviet satellite country if he could.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#69,842
#69,842
hog88 said:
WTF are you trying to talk about? There has been zero invasions or attacks (by another state) on a nuclear armed country since nuclear weapons were invented.
Click to expand...

Stay on point Hogg.

We were talking about whether donations to Ukraine help NATO (HINT: They do).

Let's just agree to disagree on your anti-government everything mentality.
 
#69,844
#69,844
MontyPython said:
Stay on point Hogg.

We were talking about whether donations to Ukraine help NATO (HINT: They do).

Let's just agree to disagree on your anti-government everything mentality.
Click to expand...

This is your post that generated this debate:

MontyPython said:
More double talk on your part.

In reality, if a NATO country is donating to UKR right now, they are contributing to NATO defense.
Click to expand...

The money and material being given to Ukraine by NATO countries is not contributing to the defense of NATO. Stop trying to move the goalposts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#69,845
#69,845
hog88 said:
This is your post that generated this debate:



The money and material being given to Ukraine by NATO countries is not contributing to the defense of NATO. Stop trying to move the goalposts.
Click to expand...

You're seriously brain dead Hogg. Reading is your friend... try it some time to get an understanding of NATO.
 
#69,846
#69,846
MontyPython said:
You're seriously brain dead Hogg. Reading is your friend... try it some time to get an understanding of NATO.
Click to expand...

Again, no NATO country was ever in danger of being attacked by Russia so how is spending on the defense of Ukraine aiding in the defense of NATO?
 
#69,847
#69,847
hog88 said:
Again, no NATO country was ever in danger of being attacked by Russia so how is spending on the defense of Ukraine aiding in the defense of NATO?
Click to expand...

Provide a link to your claim that "no NATO country is ever in danger of being attacked by Russia".

In case you haven't been keeping track, ex-Russian President Medvedev, the current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, has been threatening a Russian nuclear attack against all of Europe as well as the US.

Try to keep up, Pops.
 
#69,849
#69,849
MontyPython said:
Before you come to Chamberlain's defense, don't forget he proceeded to get the big boot from the British people for his spineless shenanigans and - thankfully - they put a guy in charge who was willing to flex some major balls in Churchill.

Don't think for a minute that Putin wouldn't take every single ex Soviet satellite country if he could.
Click to expand...
neither the Czech nor the Austrians fought Germany, so they aren't a good comparison.
The Poles did fight, and Chamberlain supported the same as we are Ukraine. Maybe before you talk crap about him you better actually know the history.

and Churchill was also the guy who got France defeated favoring a more aggressive defensive strategy trying to defend all of Belgium and the Netherlands. He then turned around and refused to send back their forces they rescued from Dunkirk after they were cut off. Most of the French from Dunkirk did you go back and fight. The French lasted almost a month after Dunkirk, so there was plenty of time for the Brits to return in a meaningful way.

You should read up on how Churchill reacted to the status of the French when he visited during the invasion. he was told the French were of "Inferior number. Inferior of equipment, and inferior of methods."

Churchill was saved by Hitler not attacking Britain, and American intervention, not by anything he particularly did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#69,850
#69,850
MontyPython said:
Provide a link to your claim that "no NATO country is ever in danger of being attacked by Russia".

In case you haven't been keeping track, ex-Russian President Medvedev, the current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, has been threatening a Russian nuclear attack against all of Europe as well as the US.

Try to keep up, Pops.
Click to expand...

When did he make this threat? Oh yeah it was recently since NATO has been financing the Ukrainians in the war against Russia, got any more examples of threats against NATO prior to the war? And what's stopping Russia from launching a nuclear attack on a NATO nation? Hmm, want to take a guess on that one?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top