Posted on 01/13/2023 5:48:27 PM PST by Mariner
An enterprising gun smuggler would start bringing these excess weapons back here to be used for when...they’re needed
And this one does?
Military Industrial Complex moguls that Eisenhower warned us
about are still worried that peace may break out any minute.
No cause for concern.
Our problem is the Communist Chinese are the real enemies for whom we need deadly weapons ready.
The only 155mm shell I found on e-bay was this - https://www.ebay.com/itm/195261558235
There’s something else too That is That well are manufacturing bases greatly reduced Automakers, for example, I have retold to make electric vehicles for fill the whims of environmentalist and current administration is so anti oil To have them making mutations when they so clearly have a much more important role to play in reducing CO2 to the environment
So basically, it’s another proxy war.
Waaaaaaaaaaah Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
Whiny Putinists have rolled out this doggerel time and again. We are not having trouble with weapons shipments. Many of the weapons sent to Ukraine are due to be replaced so they are going to have to start production anyway.
And IF they are having trouble over this relatively “little” war, how in heck do they think they are going to keep up in a “real” war??
The defense supply chain needs to get up to snuff.
“The defense supply chain needs to get up to snuff.”
Anti American neocons need to get onboard with America first.
Check it’s a money maker for Biden and the D.C. grab-a-lot crew.
You’re an idiot of you think the US has no strategic interest in Ukraine.
Let’s hear it smartass.
What is the strategic interest?
Are you done self-gratifying to a mirror reflection of yourself while fantasizing about your knowledge of global affairs?
We have plenty of interests in Ukraine.
1. Our word and global standing. Clearly, you have yet to read the A href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum">Budapest Memorandum and are unaware that the US, UK, and Russia promised to respect the sovereinty of Ukraine and protect it in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
2. Defeating Russia in Ukraine means they cannot march on Moldova and the Baltic Republics, bringing NATO into direct conflict with Russia. It is far cheaper to give Ukraine old equipment than to fight a conventional war directly against KGB Russia.
3. We are deterring China from attacking Taiwan. NATO unity makes it clear that such invasions will not be tolerated.
If you think giving some older weapons to Russia degrades our capabilities, what do you think losing carrier groups to China would do?
People supporting the Russian-Iranian-Chinese alliance are anti-American traitors, using your language.
Your ignorance of the subject is astounding.
The Budapest Memorandum was an agreement signed by Bill Clinton, carrying the full force of his personal assurances. It was never even submitted to the US Senate and it was nearly universally derided there.
While Russia is likely to continue to march to Moldova, the Baltics are something they will not take on. They have a hard enough time with Ukraine.
Your allusions to the Domino Theory are delusions.
Unlike yourself, China does not make national decisions based on emotions. They KNOW they do not have the capability to occupy Taiwan, so they will not try.
If they had the ability, Ukraine would not deter them.
All three of your arguments do not stand the test of logic.
Unlike yourself, China does not make national decisions based on emotions. They KNOW they do not have the capability to occupy Taiwan, so they will not try.
2035, when they have 5-6 carrier groups and 6-10 landing helicopter docs is different than today. But even now China could take Taiwan, provided the US did not intervene. And even if we did, we would suffer heavy casualties to win, if we do win. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2022/06/01/but-can-the-united-states-defend-taiwan/
To defeat China, we would need the support of Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and Singapore. Pressure from India would be very helpful. All of these countries have good reasons to defect to China or go neutral. We have an alliance and unofficial alliances, because countries trust us.
“And it doesn’t change the fact that our promise meant and means something.”
It was not OUR promise. It was not a promise by the USA. It was Bill Clinton’s promise.
It meant absolutely nothing. Even retards know that.
“If NATO didn’t support Ukraine, NATO would have collapsed.”
Utter nonsense. Ukraine is not a NATO member. And never will be. And no NATO member country has an existential interest there, with the US having no interests whatsoever.
Utter nonsense. Ukraine is not a NATO member. And never will be. And no NATO member country has an existential interest there, with the US having no interests whatsoever.
As if France and the UK railing to stop the Nazis from taking over the Rhineland didn't cause an end of the mutual defence treaty between France and Belgium, or British and French failures to protect Czechoslovakia didn't lead to the Molotov-Ribentrop pact. In international relations, countries learn from precedent and broken promises. A failure of the US and UK to help Ukraine would have made NATO an empty promise.
PS. I have an IQ of 145. On 4 hours of sleep and 3 drinks, I'm still smarter than most people.
“Then we should give Ukraine nuclear weapons. Can’t have it both ways.”
Ukraine was anxious to get rid of their nukes, but they slow walked it to gain compensation. And don’t think for even a minute that Ukraine was ignorant of the legal status of the memorandum.
They knew then, before they signed it, that it was not legally binding in the US, Russia, UK or Ukraine. And not in International law either. However, they DID ratify the START I AND Non-proliferation treaties in their Rada...both legally binding in Ukrainian and International Law.
“An international memorandum hammered out over a year and two American administrations made between three major powers is more than a promise by Bill Clinton.”
In law, it is ONLY a promise by Bill Clinton. Nothing else.
“A failure of the US and UK to help Ukraine would have made NATO an empty promise.”
Ludicrous.
The NATO treaty would still be binding and trusted by all members if Ukraine was incinerated tomorrow. NATO, nor the US has made any promises of any kind to Ukraine.
Otherwise there would be a treaty. Absent a treaty it’s just another empty set of promises by a rogue POTUS.
TOO bad the high-powered IQ of yours didn’t give you knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.