SAJ-99
Well-known member
seems to me it is more about democracy vs autocracy, freedom and sovereignty vs a dictatorship. Oil and gas are just some of the weapons used.Just being a smart ass. So we are fighting this war for gas and not oil
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
seems to me it is more about democracy vs autocracy, freedom and sovereignty vs a dictatorship. Oil and gas are just some of the weapons used.Just being a smart ass. So we are fighting this war for gas and not oil
Who knows, but often a wounded animal is more dangerous than a healthy one.Thus far, he ( Putin ) has not even been successful in taking the Donbas ( giving him a land corridor to Crimea ) . Finland and Sweden joins NATO. He loses equipment and men ( military ), all his friends and even himself have lost their yachts and personal income, his country has been hit with a variety of sanctions, and the world now views him as a madman ( many of us did before ), but damn, thus far that didn't work out well---even for a madman/dictator --but I realize it is not over yet, unfortunately
Surprise! Nothing this nefarious has ever happened on twitter before . . .breakfast.I am sure this will catch folks' attention . . .
Russia is swaying Twitter users outside the West to its side
An army of suspicious accounts began churning out pro-Russian content in Marchwww.economist.com
According to Glen Greenwald, in 10 weeks we have obligated 54 billionseems to me it is more about democracy vs autocracy, freedom and sovereignty vs a dictatorship. Oil and gas are just some of the weapons used.
at what point does this no longer become a war by proxy.
You lost me thereWhen we reach 1,000 casualties for American troops.
Answering your question - when does it stop being a proxy war - or so I thought. In my view, it stops being a proxy war when we actually commit troops to the ground/air sufficient to start incurring casualties.You lost me there
Thank you, I did misunderstand you.Answering your question - when does it stop being a proxy war - or so I thought. In my view, it stops being a proxy war when we actually commit troops to the ground/air sufficient to start incurring casualties.
Thank you, I did misunderstand you.
My concern is that you cannot continue to provide this level of support and not realistically expect that at some point we get drug into a more active participation. Many people in my age group are (I think) viewing this through Cold War glasses.
I'd argue 1939 but YMMVMany people in my age group are (I think) viewing this through Cold War glasses.
like additional U.S. soldiers being ordered to Somalia today, which is not a Nato country either.My concern is that you cannot continue to provide this level of support and not realistically expect that at some point we get drug into a more active participation.
hindsight is 20-20 but some argue the ww2 damage would have been less, if we had entered the war sooner, again I am to young for any any first hand knowledgeI'd argue 1939 but YMMV
Ahh, but that was just the inevitable second chapter of WW1, so is it really 1914?I'd argue 1939 but YMMV
The very punitive financial obligations placed upon the surrendering Germans in 1918 created a powder keg which then erupted in flames into WW11 in Europe. WW11 in Asia erupted a bit sooner than WW11 in Europe. If you have ever punched a bully in the face, you know there is a point diplomacy gives way to bloodshed. If you have never punched a bully in the face, your neighborhood and school was a nice place to grow up. There are nice places to live such as Switzerland that have avoided punching bullies in the face. Those countries are the exception. China is using financial "investment" into Africa and Asia in the way a Vehicle Title Loan Officer invests in someone. Maybe America needs to get into that racket of sending Americans to farm land overseas and build railways and ports there then repo the assets from the countries that often have despots pocketing the upfront money from China and leaving their country doomed to Chinese dominance without a cruise missile fired.Ahh, but that was just the inevitable second chapter of WW1, so is it really 1914?
The Cold War was only non existent when it was convenient for Obama's Romney mic drop tee hee moment and resultant media orgasm.We also need to recognize America's Cold War glasses have a different tint from the Russian leadership. They don't think the Cold War ever ended, just entered a different phase in 1990...
I don't view it as a money question. You have to ask if Russia/Putin is still a threat - military or otherwise. If you watch a lot of Tucker Carlson you might be convinced that they are not. We have spent a lot of money on the war on drugs and lost. We have spent a lot on the war on poverty and lost. Any least in this case it's a draw. And we simultaneously get to learn about an adversary's military capabilities and use some of our weapons that are getting close to their "best if used by" date.According to Glen Greenwald, in 10 weeks we have obligated 54 billion
For context the Afghan war cost 46 billion per annum, and total Russia military budget was 69 billion
How much printed money are you willing to pay, at what point does this no longer become a war by proxy.