Ukraine / Russia

[VikingsGuy]

Please don't feign confusion, you know which conflict being discussed in the last few pages I'm alluding to.

No feigning here. The last few pages have been about Ukraine casualties and general squabbling. Sometimes your brief retorts are not always clear in topic or intent. Mine tend to fail in the opposite direction.

 

[stk]

View attachment 298702

I would suspect you will see similar rates in KIA and suicides once these wars are over as well. Generations of men and women. Gone.

Not so sure about this one. Veterans have a higher rate of suicide than non-veterans even when adjusted for demographics—true—but it isn’t astronomically higher and the great majority of suicides of US veterans (and active service members) aren’t linked to combat stress. Russia already has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, but I don’t think their numbers of veteran suicides is going to dwarf their KIA in Ukraine if only because so damn many are being killed there.

 

[noharleyyet]

No feigning here. The last few pages have been about Ukraine casualties and general squabbling. Sometimes your brief retorts are not always clear in topic or intent. Mine tend to fail in the opposite direction.

That's quite the unintuitive parry...even to the most casual observer.

 

[SAJ-99]

That's quite the unintuitive parry...even to the most casual observer.

Very sesquipedalian.

Back on topic. If I get this right, the US wants to support Israel and its right to defend itself and provide “guns and money” to do so while simultaneously trying to save innocent lives by letting refugees cross into Egypt. This is noble, but Egypt can hardly take care of itself without external funding. It seems like a great way to get Egyptians to hate us too. Half of Europe already does as they have to deal with various refugee crises.

I think this is what go us into this mess - funding wars in other countries and not wanting to deal with the consequences (I.e refugees). The typical American doesn’t want to take refugees and doesn’t want to send money while pretending there will not be consequences down the road. Seems like a classic no-win brought about by lack of foresight.

Ps- Daines is on it. Here comes the GAZA Act.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Very sesquipedalian.

Back on topic. If I get this right, the US wants to support Israel and its right to defend itself and provide “guns and money” to do so while simultaneously trying to save innocent lives by letting refugees cross into Egypt. This is noble, but Egypt can hardly take care of itself without external funding. It seems like a great way to get Egyptians to hate us too. Half of Europe already does as they have to deal with various refugee crises.

I think this is what go us into this mess - funding wars in other countries and not wanting to deal with the consequences (I.e refugees). The typical American doesn’t want to take refugees and doesn’t want to send money while pretending there will not be consequences down the road. Seems like a classic no-win brought about by lack of foresight.

Ps- Daines is on it. Here comes the GAZA Act.

The US seems to stumble into conflicts with self-initiated narratives more than geopolitical import.

There was no need to care about Tawain in the 50s, but by building up its semiconductor industry, now we have a near-term existential crisis if they are lost and the flood of chips cut off. But we can disarm this if we want. We can turn our huge economy towards chip leadership again and in a decade let Bejing have it. But of course, we won't and we have a potential W3 starter of our own making.

The domino theory created a flawed narrative that got us into Vietnam - another location of dubious geopolitical import.

How about Iraq - out of whole cloth we made two huge errors - presuming advanced WMDs and presuming they were ripe for a US-style democracy if Sadam was removed. Another unforced error, and at a time where we were becoming energy independent - so oil wasn't a good reason.

Afghanistan - a short-term front to punish Taliban for hosting bin Laden et al maybe, a decades-long attempt to build a western-style democracy that had no chance from the beginning and in a location posing little threat to the US.

Isreal - Understandable guilt over slow action in Europe to protect jews from genocide gave initial approach a reasonable basis. But over the last 20 years to give Isreal carte blanche in resolving the long lasting palestinian question while funding them and pledging American troops if needed has not worked out well. If we are the protector, then the protectee has to act in a manner to reduce the need for such protection -- that has not worked out. Again, if you set aside religious undertones to justify our involvement, there is no over arching geopolitical need to go to war for the preservation of Isreal. That being said, if Isreal takes direction better I still support. But another WW3 starter in the making.

S Korea - Not too critical of initial involvement, but not a big fan of making it a permanent protectorate. At some point there needs to be a North/South reality moment and I don't see a compelling reason to send US troops other than we said we would. WW3 kindling yet again.

Iran - frankly, if not for Isreal policy by both countries this would have been diffused years ago.

So, while I tend to be "hawkish" on foreign affairs, I am frustrated that we have created a huge pile of tinder right next to open flame for several decades with no natural endpoint. If we are still alive in 20 years we will still be having this discussion, as our "umbrella of protection" relieves folks on the ground from ever finding their own solution.

As for Ukraine - I do think this is the one geopolitical tangle that makes sense from a geopolitical perspective given its proximity to NATO - although lack of international support for economic consequences has made it less effective than folks had hoped. On the flip side, the Ukrainians have held up their end with courage.

I have no idea which mess is the next ArchDuke moment, but it just seems like one is inevitable and I am not convinced most were necessary to keep precarious for 50 years from a US interests perspective.

 

[SAJ-99]

So, while I tend to be "hawkish" on foreign affairs, I am frustrated that we have created a huge pile of tinder right next to open flame for several decades with no natural endpoint. If we are still alive in 20 years we will still be having this discussion, as our "umbrella of protection" relieves folks on the ground from ever finding their own solution.

At least you believe they can find a solution. Looking back at the last 3000 years, most solutions have been similar to the solutions we see today. Crazy power-hungry leaders doing crazy power-hungry things by using the lives of young men like chips at the poker table. Maybe it's just our nature.

 

[Handlebar]

The US seems to stumble into conflicts with self-initiated narratives more than geopolitical import.

There was no need to care about Tawain in the 50s, but by building up its semiconductor industry, now we have a near-term existential crisis if they are lost and the flood of chips cut off. But we can disarm this if we want. We can turn our huge economy towards chip leadership again and in a decade let Bejing have it. But of course, we won't and we have a potential W3 starter of our own making.

The domino theory created a flawed narrative that got us into Vietnam - another location of dubious geopolitical import.

How about Iraq - out of whole cloth we made two huge errors - presuming advanced WMDs and presuming they were ripe for a US-style democracy if Sadam was removed. Another unforced error, and at a time where we were becoming energy independent - so oil wasn't a good reason.

Afghanistan - a short-term front to punish Taliban for hosting bin Laden et al maybe, a decades-long attempt to build a western-style democracy that had no chance from the beginning and in a location posing little threat to the US.

Isreal - Understandable guilt over slow action in Europe to protect jews from genocide gave initial approach a reasonable basis. But over the last 20 years to give Isreal carte blanche in resolving the long lasting palestinian question while funding them and pledging American troops if needed has not worked out well. If we are the protector, then the protectee has to act in a manner to reduce the need for such protection -- that has not worked out. Again, if you set aside religious undertones to justify our involvement, there is no over arching geopolitical need to go to war for the preservation of Isreal. That being said, if Isreal takes direction better I still support. But another WW3 starter in the making.

S Korea - Not too critical of initial involvement, but not a big fan of making it a permanent protectorate. At some point there needs to be a North/South reality moment and I don't see a compelling reason to send US troops other than we said we would. WW3 kindling yet again.

Iran - frankly, if not for Isreal policy by both countries this would have been diffused years ago.

So, while I tend to be "hawkish" on foreign affairs, I am frustrated that we have created a huge pile of tinder right next to open flame for several decades with no natural endpoint. If we are still alive in 20 years we will still be having this discussion, as our "umbrella of protection" relieves folks on the ground from ever finding their own solution.

As for Ukraine - I do think this is the one geopolitical tangle that makes sense from a geopolitical perspective given its proximity to NATO - although lack of international support for economic consequences has made it less effective than folks had hoped. On the flip side, the Ukrainians have held up their end with courage.

I have no idea which mess is the next ArchDuke moment, but it just seems like one is inevitable and I am not convinced most were necessary to keep precarious for 50 years from a US interests perspective.

You are beginning to sound a little isolationist.

 

[Sytes]

Where we error: Individual / Corporate portfolio managers interest over Nationalism. Whereas WWII and before, while shareholders existed, there was the American Revolution staunch pride for America ---> Theodore Roosevelt reminder/call for America first.

Ukraine has been a venture point for European sex / slave worker smuggle Nexus (illegal immigration practice) to America. Sick to think Americans cater though 310 million people and a trickling loss of respect/integrity/pride leaves us creating an increased demand for such garbage.
Where there's a demand...

Zelensky has been a change for the better though to drain the swamp, criminal enterprise to smuggle humans is a massive swamp.

Ukrainian U4U has turned into an ugly quagmire that the suppliers have taken advantage of U.S. offer to temporarily "Parole" Ukranians into the U.S. (Immigration).

This is ongoing.

Include the dynamics of Israel pushing their borders further into the undefined Palestinian territory, Hamas crafted international attention by targeting those encroached settlement expansions with disregard to civilians... and now Russia and China, backed by the U.N. condemn U.S. as the leading support for Israel - and the line between U.S. and Russia begins a media fog of war over subjective parallels.
Let me be clear: Hamas needs to be stopped. U.S. must continue to staunchly back Israel. That said, Israel must HALT their territory grab from Palestinian territory and once and for all grant an internationally recognized border.
Many people hear of Israel and immediately back them, as U.S. citizens though there's much more to the story than some crazed t-e-r-ro---r** entity shell civilians for the heck of it.
***"Hamas" already flagged these posts within NSA AI databank and likely my adjusted word above but hey, gotta try to screw with AI. Haha!

This pops and the dynamics for Ukraine support will drastically swing.

 

[KB_]

At least you believe they can find a solution. Looking back at the last 3000 years, most solutions have been similar to the solutions we see today. Crazy power-hungry leaders doing crazy power-hungry things by using the lives of young men like chips at the poker table. Maybe it's just our nature.

Would have to agree. Most people who want to lead those efforts, at least historically speaking seem to have other ideas to advance themselves. I think there is a solution to stop all this madness as well. What that ends up being? I dont know if any of us can anticipate that.

 

[KB_]

***"Hamas" already flagged these posts within NSA AI databank and likely my adjusted word above but hey, gotta try to screw with AI. Haha!

? can you elaborate.... Hamas Flagging theses posts within NSA? Curious what your trying to say.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You are beginning to sound a little isolationist.

I am willing to bring the full military and economy to bear if needed - just need to see what's in it for us

 

[Sytes]

? can you elaborate.... Hamas Flagging theses posts within NSA? Curious what your trying to say.

Edited to simplify response:
No, not Hamas within NSA.
I was humoring over my public post that uses the word "Hamas" and the other word that's likely sifted into one abyss or another within NSA's AI supported data mining operations.

Short story: It was humor for the reality of the public data we post and the known collection of such.

 

[Sytes]

Ukraine war: Russia executing own retreating soldiers, US says

The White House says heavy losses and poor morale are leading to mutinies in some units.

www.bbc.com

According to the U.S...

Propaganda or truth? Russia's history - been there, done that. WWII Russia shot their own who retreated. Either propaganda using history to filter through Russian media block to reach Russian citizens or truth, Russia is killing their own poorly trained/outfitted military retreating.

Also, interesting portion the BBC shared about our newly elected Speaker, Johnson, opposes further Ukranians aid and said "U.S. should not be involved in a war overseas". Meanwhile, Johnson shared overwhelming supportive involvement in the Israeli war.
Go figure. Politics as usual.

 

[devon deer]

Immigration will destroy Europe, not the Russians

You are bang on the money there !

 

[VikingsGuy]

You are bang on the money there !

Europe has 3 options long term. Have a huge “baby boom” starting right now, find a way to do immigration well, suffer demographic collapse that will be the nail in the coffin.

 

[BrentD]

Europe has 3 options long term. Have a huge “baby boom” starting right now, find a way to do immigration well, suffer demographic collapse that will be the nail in the coffin.

And the USA is the same. our economic model is predicated on fiscal growth that basically requires population growth. Of course we will eventually "grow ourselves to death" in the long run, but that's another matter.

 

[VikingsGuy]

And the USA is the same. our economic model is predicated on fiscal growth that basically requires population growth. Of course we will eventually "grow ourselves to death" in the long run, but that's another matter.

While politically messy, immigration and higher birth rates has US positioned as the only large economy that looks to escape the problem for the next 50 yrs. After that, who knows. In an odd way, the dismantling of uniform global trade will help US if we successfully navigate unwinding China supply chains in the coming decade. We are the rare nation with stable to growing population, food self sufficient and energy self sufficient. Brazil is also in a decent place to grow if they don’t self sabotage via shaky political system (but same could be said for US in ‘24).

 

[BrentD]

While politically messy, immigration and higher birth rates has US positioned as the only large economy that looks to escape the problem for the next 50 yrs. After that, who knows. In an odd way, the dismantling of uniform global trade will help US if we successfully navigate unwinding China supply chains in the coming decade. We are the rare nation with stable to growing population, food self sufficient and energy self sufficient. Brazil is also in a decent place to grow if they don’t self sabotage via shaky political system (but same could be said for US in ‘24).

I don't know about 50 yrs or not. That's a LONG time in these days of accelerating change of everything. But it's not sustainable in the long run. Also, I don't think we have population growth w/o immigration, 1.7 kids per household definitely won't cut it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don't know about 50 yrs or not. That's a LONG time in these days of accelerating change of everything. But it's not sustainable in the long run. Also, I don't think we have population growth w/o immigration, 1.7 kids per household definitely won't cut it.

I believe economic success is almost definitionally relative to others. Like the old tiger joke, we don't have to be great we just have to be better than the others. And there are few countries better positioned to "win" the next 50 yrs than the US (if we don't screw it up).

 

[SAJ-99]

While politically messy, immigration and higher birth rates has US positioned as the only large economy that looks to escape the problem for the next 50 yrs. After that, who knows. In an odd way, the dismantling of uniform global trade will help US if we successfully navigate unwinding China supply chains in the coming decade. We are the rare nation with stable to growing population, food self sufficient and energy self sufficient. Brazil is also in a decent place to grow if they don’t self sabotage via shaky political system (but same could be said for US in ‘24).

Hot of the presses. Apparently birth rates won't save us.

U.S. Population Projected to Begin Declining in Second Half of Century

The U.S. population is projected to reach a high of nearly 370 million in 2080 before edging downward to 366 million in 2100.

www.census.gov