War in Ukraine

[jmacvols1]

you have no proof either way.

neither do you.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I see. You don't know if 100 billion is "missing" or not as you have no proof either way. But you are buying into the assertion that 100 billion is "missing"? If that's the case, I have nothing else to add.

I say even if the midget hadn't said that, I would assume the money is gone unless someone really really does a lot to track it down.... its the Ukrainian way.

The only thing I can say is, I'm glad that Trump shut down funding.... success in full to me.

 

[McDad]

It also leaves off the $6 billion EU aid package just announced.

None of which changes the fact that Trump lied.

Trump lies. So does the graph.

It's why we should remain vigilant in our skepticism.

 

[LouderVol]

looks like Trump thinks Z and Euros are impediment to peace. Push Z aside and give the people what they want.. Poll from Oct.

View attachment 723159View attachment 723160View attachment 723160

we aren't the world's police. we certainly aren't Ukraine's police. Trump should absolutely not be involved in replacing another countries president, unless we are at war with them.

We shouldn't care one iota what the Ukrainian public wants. we don't work for them.

 

[volbound1700]

we aren't the world's police. we certainly aren't Ukraine's police. Trump should absolutely not be involved in replacing another countries president, unless we are at war with them.

We shouldn't care one iota what the Ukrainian public wants. we don't work for them.

I personally think we shouldn't even be negotiating the peace. I think we should entirely step away from all of it.

 

[LouderVol]

That is probably fair, given the qualifiers of "in modern times," "while at war" and "in the regions attacked." I would hope that if Americans were attacked, its citizenry would still have constitutional protections in the conflict zones, but the patriot act makes me doubt that even we are strong enough to stand for our individual freedoms.

I suppose my question is this: If an elected leader gets to declare martial law for a war that started under his leadership, and if martial law means there are no more elections, isn't that leader incentivized to prolong conflict, rather than end it? Especially if he were not particularly popular?

Somewhere, Churchill's corpse is grieving lost opportunities.

the war didn't start under Zelensky. It started in 2014. it escalated in 2022, but it didn't start, plenty of dead and fighting before then. and considering Putin has a bounty on Zelensky's head I doubt staying in power means that much if it means being the target of a bounty.

in WW2 US citizens in Hawaii were denied their rights for 4 years under Martial Law. The local government was replaced, and the military took over running those islands. Voting was restricted, every person over a certain age had to be registered, and were subject to extra-judicial searches and seizures at the discretion of the military.

*I have seen conflicting info on what "registered" means, at the minimum they had to have military approved ID at all times. but some claims went up to they had to meet with military officials regularly to maintain standing, as well as undergoing regular searches of any registered property*

 

[LouderVol]

I personally think we shouldn't even be negotiating the peace. I think we should entirely step away from all of it.

replacing their president is the opposite of getting away from it.

 

[BeardedVol]

Trump lies. So does the graph.

It's why we should remain vigilant in our skepticism.

A graph being outdated by two months isn't a lie, Trump willfully making a false statement is.

 

[McDad]

A graph being outdated by two months isn't a lie, Trump willfully making a false statement is.

Based on total aid given by the USA, the graph was incorrect at the time of release.

 

[McDad]

Based on total aid given by the USA, the graph was incorrect at the time of release.

.. or Rueters is incorrect (lying).

 

[jmacvols1]

tell us something we don't already know

 

[LSU-SIU]

You think?

 

[Ritzwatch]

the war didn't start under Zelensky. It started in 2014. it escalated in 2022, but it didn't start, plenty of dead and fighting before then. and considering Putin has a bounty on Zelensky's head I doubt staying in power means that much if it means being the target of a bounty.

However and whenever it started, it continues without Ukranians having a voice in their leadership during the war, and I believe that to be wrong.

With the war starting in 2014, it makes Zelensky's decision to not hold elections worse, not better. Ukraine obviously held elections after the war started; they should hold them now. That is, if we are supporting them because of "democracy."

in WW2 US citizens in Hawaii were denied their rights for 4 years under Martial Law. The local government was replaced, and the military took over running those islands. Voting was restricted, every person over a certain age had to be registered, and were subject to extra-judicial searches and seizures at the discretion of the military.

This is pretty interesting. I had never really looked into this aspect of things. I wonder how much of this was possible due to the remoteness of Hawaii to the mainland, or, more likely, because Hawaii was not a State at the time. I just can't see, for instance, the citizens of East Tennessee giving up their constitutional rights because we are at war. I don't know though, maybe they would have no choice.

Thanks for pointing out the Hawaii example; I will be interested in digging a little deeper into that history and learning something.

*I have seen conflicting info on what "registered" means, at the minimum they had to have military approved ID at all times. but some claims went up to they had to meet with military officials regularly to maintain standing, as well as undergoing regular searches of any registered property*

I wonder, again, if the "territory" vs "state" distinction matters here. Gonna have to "do my research" as they say.

It makes me very uncomfortable to think that an Executive could declare martial law and thereby extend his/her time in office indefinitely.

 

[Orangeburst]

we aren't the world's police. we certainly aren't Ukraine's police. Trump should absolutely not be involved in replacing another countries president, unless we are at war with them.

We shouldn't care one iota what the Ukrainian public wants. we don't work for them.

Ukraine is lobbing US missiles into Russia, so too late to think we have no part in ending this.

 

[Orange.]

There are few areas where I agree with Matt Lewis, but he's spot on with this article.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5151253-conservatism-used-to-mean-something-now-its-just-whatever-trump-says/

You love you some neocon warmongers, for sure, brother!

Numerous hard core neocons have come out of the woodwork to slam President Donald Trump’s efforts to put an end to the war in Ukraine. Foreign policy hawks such as Republican Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker is one. Like Hillary Clinton, Wicker has never met a war he didn't love. He supported the Iraq War and U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and said in late 2021 that the U.S. should consider a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia. Nothing like a good nuclear war to get you and your friends excited, BeardedOne!

Former GOP Illinois Rep. turned CNN commentator Adam Kinzinger is another. Kinzinger introduced a joint resolution in 2022 to allow U.S. soldiers to enter Ukraine. That failed, but don't be sad: I think you yourself can still volunteer for the Ukrainian Army.

John Bolton has absolutely railed at the idea of peace talks. Bolton is a real neocon's neocon, to this day a staunch defender of the Iraq war which he still credits for stopping Iraq's "acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.” There is still no reliable proof Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction at the time of the invasion. But maybe they were outsourcing and hiding their program offshore in Wuhan?

You and lawgator might like to raid some nightclubs and bars in the U.S. to conscript soldiers for Wicker's wet dream. Good little Bolton-ettes.

 

[LSU-SIU]

You love you some neocon warmongers, for sure, brother!

Numerous hard core neocons have come out of the woodwork to slam President Donald Trump’s efforts to put an end to the war in Ukraine. Foreign policy hawks such as Republican Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker is one. Like Hillary Clinton, Wicker has never met a war he didn't love. He supported the Iraq War and U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and said in late 2021 that the U.S. should consider a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia. Nothing like a good nuclear war to get you and your friends excited, BeardedOne!

Former Republican Illinois Rep. turned CNN commentator Adam Kinzinger is another. Kinzinger introduced a joint resolution in 2022 to allow U.S. soldiers to enter Ukraine.

And John Bolton has absolutely railed at the idea of peace talks. Bolton is a neocon's neocon, still is a staunch defender of the Iraq war for stopping Iraq's "acquisition of weapons of mass destruction” in a neocon National Review column as late as last year. There is still no reliable proof Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction at the time of the invasion. Maybe they were outsourcing and hiding their program offshore in Wuhan?

Maybe you would like to raid nightclubs and bars in the U.S. to conscript soldiers for Wicker's wet dream.

I put him on ignore but funny to see comments on him.

He's the tough guy that works from the rear i.e. internet warrior. If only real wars were determined by internet warriors. (only a few left in the thread, amazing how that works... it doesn't even take bullets)

 

[LouderVol]

However and whenever it started, it continues without Ukranians having a voice in their leadership during the war, and I believe that to be wrong.

With the war starting in 2014, it makes Zelensky's decision to not hold elections worse, not better. Ukraine obviously held elections after the war started; they should hold them now. That is, if we are supporting them because of "democracy."

This is pretty interesting. I had never really looked into this aspect of things. I wonder how much of this was possible due to the remoteness of Hawaii to the mainland, or, more likely, because Hawaii was not a State at the time. I just can't see, for instance, the citizens of East Tennessee giving up their constitutional rights because we are at war. I don't know though, maybe they would have no choice.

Thanks for pointing out the Hawaii example; I will be interested in digging a little deeper into that history and learning something.

I wonder, again, if the "territory" vs "state" distinction matters here. Gonna have to "do my research" as they say.

It makes me very uncomfortable to think that an Executive could declare martial law and thereby extend his/her time in office indefinitely.

its how their Constitution was written, long before Zelensky was president. I don't like it either, but that doesn't invalidate their Constitution.

I think some third party investigation after the fact looking into Zelensky's roll in maintaining the war is valid. *without the expectation that he should have tanked the fight just to end the war so they could have an election over whatever was left of a nation*

I think they would be wise to rewrite their Constitution or at least add some terms/conditions to avoid the potential conflict of interest.

 

[LouderVol]

Ukraine is lobbing US missiles into Russia, so too late to think we have no part in ending this.

please. this is the gun grabber argument that gun manufacturers are at fault because gang bangers performed a drive by.

we can end our aid, but that doesn't mean we are in any way responsible for finding a suitable peace or choosing who their leader is and isn't.

 

[bamawriter]

However and whenever it started, it continues without Ukranians having a voice in their leadership during the war, and I believe that to be wrong.

With the war starting in 2014, it makes Zelensky's decision to not hold elections worse, not better. Ukraine obviously held elections after the war started; they should hold them now. That is, if we are supporting them because of "democracy."

They held elections in 2014, but not in the areas that Russia had taken. Martial law hadn't been declared across the entire country because Russia's incursion was relatively limited at that point.

It's also not "Zelensky's decision." The imposition of martial law is an agreement between the executive and parliament. Zelensky isn't making a unilateral decision.

 

[Orange.]

People like you, @BeardedVol, are working for Putin. You're so rabid with Trump hate that you haven't taken a breath to consider that the more the President is sabotaged during the negotiations, the less bargaining power the U.S. has to demand concessions. Putin is counting on you, your buddies, and some EU stooges to strengthen Russia's hand.

Maybe you want the worst possible deal for Ukraine in exchange for the pleasure of ranting. (And truth be told, you have already started spreading misinformation "guesses" and assailing the idea of peace before you know what deal is). And your posse will probably continue to hold petty political talking points more dear than Ukrainian lives and America's interest afterward, however the deal turns out. You know, the coordinated "take of the day" is spread by bots and television daily, so you can just repeat it. The substance of the deal won't make any difference in that respect.

But there is no way you can do that and honestly give a damn about the Ukrainians. You would have them all dead for the thrill of firing one more missile and taking one more political potshot. The generation of healthy Ukrainian men under 30 is so depleted now -- and 800,000 young women (plus many men who don’t think fighting for Ukraine is worth the danger) have left the country for countries enjoying peace. Ukraine is reportedly now diverting military money into freezing men's sperm before they are ordered to die.

 

[volbound1700]

I like this video. I can't say that I 100% share all his views but like his breakdown of Trump's tweet:

 

[Orange.]

its how their Constitution was written, long before Zelensky was president. I don't like it either, but that doesn't invalidate their Constitution.

I think some third party investigation after the fact looking into Zelensky's roll in maintaining the war is valid. *without the expectation that he should have tanked the fight just to end the war so they could have an election over whatever was left of a nation*

I think they would be wise to rewrite their Constitution or at least add some terms/conditions to avoid the potential conflict of interest.

They should look into where all the money went. But also if the piano playing penis and TV actor would simply say that he would support an election, the parliament might take up the question.

 

[exotic_vols]

neither do you.

But I never asserted 100 billion was not missing (because I don't know either way) so I don't have to show anything. It was you who was saying that the 100 billion is missing but showed no proof.

Or maybe let me try another way. For example, you were saying the election was stolen. I said "Please showed me the proof." You said, "How about you showed me the proof that the election was not stolen (audits etc.)." But the problem is I never said whether the election was stolen or not because I didn't have anything to back me up either way. It was you who brought the accusation but showed no proof of. Whether I had proof of anything is irrelevant.

 

[BeardedVol]

People like you, @BeardedVol, are working for Putin. You're so rabid with Trump hate that you haven't taken a breath to consider that the more the President is sabotaged during the negotiations, the less bargaining power the U.S. has to demand concessions. Putin is counting on you, your buddies, and some EU stooges to strengthen Russia's hand.

Maybe you want the worst possible deal for Ukraine in exchange for the pleasure of ranting. (And truth be told, you have already started spreading misinformation "guesses" and assailing the idea of peace before you know what deal is). And your posse will probably continue to hold petty political talking points more dear than Ukrainian lives and America's interest afterward, however the deal turns out. You know, the coordinated "take of the day" is spread by bots and television daily, so you can just repeat it. The substance of the deal won't make any difference in that respect.

But there is no way you can do that and honestly give a damn about the Ukrainians. You would have them all dead for the thrill of firing one more missile and taking one more political potshot. The generation of healthy Ukrainian men under 30 is so depleted now -- and 800,000 young women have left the country for countries enjoying peace -- that Ukraine is diverting military money into freeze men's sperm before they are ordered to die.

Honestly, do you let chatgpt write your posts?

You're concern trolling for Ukrainians while advocating that they be surrendered to Russia, so that Putin can continue his attempted genocide of them unopposed.

No matter how much you want to believe Trump or Rubio, Putin has zero desire for peace.

 

[Orange.]

No matter how much you want to believe Trump or Rubio,...

It's not rational for them to stop fighting before the talks advance. I don't think you're very realistic or experienced in negotiation. Especially when they can count on people like you to undercut an American proposal on the home front. Putin wants you to weaken the US bargaining position. And did Ukraine declare a ceasefire?

It has nothing to do with me believing anyone.

Your whole outlook, obsession, anger, and distorted view of the world is because you still believe the disproven RussiaGate op and disinformation campaign. You're still acting the brainwashing out in your daily life.

That was all a lie, bruh. It was an op. A treasonous op. Your whole perspective is based on a lie. And btw that is good news. Maybe you could learn to do better if you are honest.

Putin has zero desire for peace.

Your RussiaGate lie again. You don't know what he wants. The lying election op told you what it wanted to believe he wants.

It's extremely unlikely that bruh wants to fight us. So stop panicking!

If Putin won't make a deal because he "has zero desire for peace," as you say, then you have nothing to worry about as a war-loving and expenditure-happy neocon. (Well, nuclear war, maybe, but I'm not sure you care about that.)

And if Putin makes and breaks a deal, then you'll also get your way.

So don't be so bot-like. Programmed fear and outrage is a helluva drug.