Zelensky… U.S. will have to send their sons and daughters to die…

1. “No place in the world is more than a few minutes away by ICBM, or a few hours away by commercial airliner, or a few days away by ship.”

That is true whether America is engaged in foreign wars or not. The risk remains the same. Though I would like to hear argument otherwise.

And I agree with the concept America has essential interests outside the Americas. But NATO ain’t one of them. Those parasitic bastards can take care of themselves. We should no longer do it for them, no matter the outcome.

2. “It’s impossible to isolate America from the rest of the world, especially our allies, and any effort to do so will only make our conditions worse.”

I am not advocating isolation. Fair trade and open travel with closed borders should be the foundation.

3. “Using reasonable safeguards against over-dependence on our enemies (i.e., China) is one thing.
Applying those same restrictions to our friends & allies would be the height of stupidity.”

Are you talking about tariffs? I believe the US should have across the board tariffs against any country/bloc that restricts our products in any way...and any country that is not subject to the same environmental and labor laws.

4. “Vlad the Invader’s war in Ukraine represents a return to the Empires of Conquest that were largely destroyed by the First World War.
That new world of empires will not be friendly to us, and we will not like it.”

Non sequitur and hyperbolic bullshit. Again. There is no way a thinking person could arrive at that conclusion either from your logic above, or the facts on the ground.

Navy Patriot: "Bottom Line: Economics caused the war, and you know it."

No, only people steeped in Marxist ideology claim "economics" is the "real reason" for everything, and then only for their enemies.
So Marxists themselves, they claim, are still capable of higher values such as "saving democracy" or "preventing genocide".
Even the most dedicated Marxists seldom admit they started a war just because oil prices were too high.

But people not dedicated to Marxist ideology can easily grasp other motives than economics for war, even for our enemies.
And in the case of Vlad the Invader, if economics was his biggest concern, then we'd expect him to have said things like: "Ukraine must reduce their charges on gas pipelines or Russia will annex Crimea!"
But Vlad never said anything remotely like that and so claiming such economics was his "real reason" is more than a little far-fetched.

Mariner: "That is true whether America is engaged in foreign wars or not.
The risk remains the same.
Though I would like to hear argument otherwise."

You might remember Von Clausewitz's aphorism, "war is politics by other means" and Henry Kissinger's reversal regarding VI Lenin, who believed, says Kissinger, politics is war by other means?
And what is local police work if not legally controlled war against criminals?

Indeed, what is war? Vlad the Invader calls his war a "special military operation".
In Pentagon-ese, war is "kinetic action" as opposed to "soft force" diplomatic or cyber warfare.
I understand the US still has troops in Syria -- are they at war or is it something else?

The last time the US formally declared war was in December 1941, after Pearl Harbor, and yet we've fought in many places since then, losing tens of thousands of young American lives.
Were those wars, or something else?

My point is: there are many actions countries can and do take which use military force and yet are not considered full blown war.
And these are exactly the kinds of military actions the US has used since 1945 to help maintain world peace.
Without them, the world today would be a very different place, and if we now stop using those "kinetic actions", the world will quickly become much less friendly and dominated by regional powers like Vlad the Invader and his senior partner the Xi-snake.

Mariner: "And I agree with the concept America has essential interests outside the Americas.
But NATO ain’t one of them.
Those parasitic bastards can take care of themselves.
We should no longer do it for them, no matter the outcome."

I agree Europeans should contribute more to NATO, and numbers I've seen say the EU combined has contributed as much as, or more, to Ukraine than the US, so far.

But the fact is, there's no more important alliance in the world than the US and NATO/EU.
The US and EU are roughly equal in population and GDP, and combined make up 40% of the world's GDP.
Add to that Canada and our Pacific allies, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Australia, and the US and allies account for well over 50% of the world's GDP.

Another 30% of world GDP comes from the B.R.I.C.S -- Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa -- about 60% of that being just China.
So, actually, it should be written as C.R.I.B.S, putting China and Russia first.
My point is: the CRIBS combined are more powerful economically than the US alone, but not more than the US plus our allies.

The key idea here is: the US plus our allies can still dominate the world -- economically, militarily, politically & culturally, to the same degree that the US alone did beginning in 1945.
The result is world peace and amazingly growing global prosperity.

But if we try to stand alone in the world, then other great alliances, such as the BRICS (CRIBS) or the EU can dominate us.

Mariner: "I am not advocating isolation.
Fair trade and open travel with closed borders should be the foundation."

But all of those are based on our military and economic alliances.
Nothing good happens without a strong military presence to enforce peace and basic laws.

Mariner: "Are you talking about tariffs?
I believe the US should have across the board tariffs against any country/bloc that restricts our products in any way...and any country that is not subject to the same environmental and labor laws."

No, I'm talking about laws, sanctions, intended to protect our economic independence by restricting imports of certain critical products (i.e., pharmaceuticals) from hostile actors like China.
Such laws should not apply to our friends and allies.
Tariffs are a different matter and can sometimes be used in lieu of sanctions.

Mariner: "Non sequitur and hyperbolic bullshit. Again.
There is no way a thinking person could arrive at that conclusion either from your logic above, or the facts on the ground."

And here is where your almighty stupidity reigns supreme, blinding you to the First Law of Human Nature: weakness provokes aggression from bad people.
We have seen it play out today in first, Chechnya (1999), then Georgia (2008) and now Ukraine (from 2014 on), just as we saw it in the 1930s in the Rhineland (1936), Austria (1938) and Czechoslovakia (1938).
Yes, Ukraine is still Czechoslovakia and Neville Chamberlain at Munich, it's not yet 1939 Poland and the Hitler-Stalin alliance which triggered the Second World War.

But that is exactly what everybody is looking at and realizing, now is the time to act.
If Vlad the Invader succeeds in Ukraine, it will increase Russia's population and economic power by roughly one third.
That will make Russia's next target country all the easier to overwhelm in a fight.
And Vlad the Invader, like Hitler before him, has told us expressly that he wants to reestablish the old Russian Empire.
Why would you ever doubt him on this?

“And here is where your almighty stupidity reigns supreme, blinding you to the First Law of Human Nature: weakness provokes aggression from bad people.”

If you must, continue being the fool.

The US is NOT weak, and never will be. No nation will ever seek incineration by us.

How is it even possible, outside psychosis, to care whether the old Russian Empire is restored? We have no REAL interests in any of those countries. Only ephemeral abstract interests at best.

“… House Atreides tells us the war was caused, somehow, by Nord Stream.

House Atreides, post #35: “Germany and Russia wearied of paying EXORBITANT TRANSIT FEES to nations like Poland and Ukraine.
They were TRYING TO AVOID POLISH EXTORTION by BYPASSING THEM with the NORD STREAM PIPELINE.
So please give the invalid “THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING” boogeyman scare tactic a rest.”…”
*********************************************************************

Please…. PLEASE…. Reread post # 35 above, put your reading comprehension hat on and try to what I said. I did NOT say the current Ukraine war was “caused, somehow, by Nord Stream”. I said the Nord Stream pipeline network itself was built to avoid Polish and Ukrainian transit fees — AND IT WAS! And what my post 35 was addressing was the silly idea that, somehow, if we don’t support Ukraine, Russia will invade Poland.

Mariner: "If you must, continue being the fool.
The US is NOT weak, and never will be.
No nation will ever seek incineration by us."

Of course not, but there's no need to risk incineration if the US will only defend our own borders and territorial waters.
That still leaves 93% of the globe's land area available for conquest by aggressive & brutal dictators.
Russia and China together have a huge head start, already owning 18% of the world's land mass, almost three times the size of the United States with over three times our population.
By the time any aggressive dictators owned 93% of the world's land mass, the US's tiny 7% will be inconsequential and the dictators will have many different levers of power to force Americans to their will.
No need for dictators to ever risk incineration, if the US won't help defend other friendly democracies.

But even more important, the very words, "strong" and "weak" are 100% relative, so what was strong in the past can today be very weak, even though in absolute terms it didn't change.
I could choose any number of examples, an obvious one is 20th century battleships -- in 1914 dreadnaughts were the naval kings of battle.
By 1941 battleships were more powerful than ever, but were reduced to support roles by aircraft carriers, the new naval kings of battle.
So "strong" and "weak" are relative terms.

The US today is stronger, in many ways, than we were in 1945.
But we are decidedly weaker than we were in 1945, relative to the rest of the world.
So sure, at some future point, we could be as strong as ever in absolute terms, but if aggressive dictators own 93% of the world's land mass and we will only defend our own 7%, then we will be relatively weak and pathetic.

Mariner: "How is it even possible, outside psychosis, to care whether the old Russian Empire is restored?
We have no REAL interests in any of those countries.
Only ephemeral abstract interests at best."

The United States is, by definition, "ephemeral" and "abstract"!
We are as ephemeral as the American dream, we are as abstract as the US Constitution.
We are a nation of abstractions -- laws not men, the Constitution not ethnicities, freedom not a state religion, elections not a dictator's iron fist.
If we lose the war over ephemeral abstractions, then we cease to exist as a country.

So there is nothing more important in the known Universe than ephemeral abstractions, like the US Constitution.
Our friends and allies around the world make life much easier for us.
If they are defeated by aggressive empires, our lives and ephemeral abstractions will become increasingly more difficult.

House Atreides: "Please…. PLEASE…. Reread post # 35 above, put your reading comprehension hat on and try to what I said.
I did NOT say the current Ukraine war was “caused, somehow, by Nord Stream”."

I think I understood you perfectly well, but the issue I addressed in post #197 above was Navy Patriot's response to your post #35 with his comments in #95:

"EXACTLY. Those are the Economics that started this War, and HomoNazi Ukraine deserves punishment."

So, Navy Patriot claimed that somehow Nord Stream was "the Economics that started this War", and therefore, "HomoNazi Ukraine deserves punishment."
I was trying to disabuse him, and anyone else, of such a ridiculous notion.

The fact is, if we are to believe Vlad the Invader on this, economics of Nord Stream, or anything else, had nothing to do with his invasions or annexing Crimea & Donbass.

House Atreides: "I said the Nord Stream pipeline network itself was built to avoid Polish and Ukrainian transit fees — AND IT WAS!
And what my post 35 was addressing was the silly idea that, somehow, if we don’t support Ukraine, Russia will invade Poland."

Like you, I doubt but don't know if Poland will be next after a successful Ukraine invasion.
My guess would be a non-NATO country like Moldova or Georgia, but there is also the matter of Kaliningrad, a Russian outpost surrounded by NATO -- Poland and Lithuania.
It might be that Russians in Kaliningrad feel so threatened by their NATO neighbors that Vlad the Invader has no choice except to liberate them by invading Latvia and Lithuania, to create a "safe zone" corridor for Russians.

And the key point to remember here is that a successful invasion of Ukraine will increase Russia's population and economy by roughly one third, and that will make Vlad's next invasions all the easier.
It's the same pattern we saw in the 1930s in the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and then, which country came next?
What was that next country after Czechoslovakia?

Wait... wait... I'll look it up and get back to you... 🤣

No matter how many Uke Nazi Halos you try to polish, the cause of this War is Economics.

And you're never gettin' your money back, or anything for it, Sucker!

https://i.imgur.com/NR78MhN.png

Navy Patriot: "No matter how many Uke Nazi Halos you try to polish, the cause of this War is Economics."

Well, then, FRiend, you should book the next flight to Moscow (assuming you're not already there) so you can explain Marxism to Vlad the Invader, and what his real motives are, because he thinks he's fighting for something else entirely.

Here again is what Vlad said he invaded for:

Putin's fears over NATO expansion.
Such fears would be utterly baseless had Russia itself joined NATO as planned in 1992.
Putin falsely claimed Ukraine was committing genocide against ethnic Russians.
Putin falsely claimed Ukraine isn't a real country.
In fact, Russia recognized Ukraine several times and guaranteed Ukraine's security in 1992.
Putin falsely claimed Ukraine was trying to build nuclear weapons.
Putin has said he wants to restore the old Russian Empire, and key to that is conquest of Ukraine.

Really, FRiend, you and your boss, Vlad, should at least try to get your stories straight, so you're not talking at cross-purposes.

Navy Patriot: "And you're never gettin' your money back, or anything for it, Sucker!"

Naw, but I think it will take you Russians generations to pay off reparations for the deaths & destruction you did in Ukraine.
Start saving your money now.

FUZ

FUVZ.