Russian Warship destroyed. Kerch bridge out

Youtube.com ^ | 3-5-2024 | The Enforcer

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

🔴 STREAMING VIDEO - 3-5-2024

Russian Warship destroyed. Kerch bridge out

The Enforcer

3-5-2024 10:00 p.m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMudFOT6sG0

European Leaders Warn That War Has Returned & Prepare For War; Major Escalations

Welcome Back To Day 741 Of The News!

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

“Here at FreeRepublic.com, I lend support to people, I write about what I think about a topic, I point to Jim Robinson’s Code of Conduct as something that applies to each of us, and I try to honor his request.

Because here, I want people to learn to write well, and at all times be able to respond to a liberal, with well-stated arguments in support of our maintaining freedom, liberty, and love of truth.

Instead of people engaging in activities that would cause a passerby to notice the bar room knife fights . . . instead of noticing some writing by a Freeper that would cause that passerby to THINK about the blessings and foundations of our freedom.

We only have the rights we defend, as long as we are able.

We are only as free as we make the effort to know why.”

Thank you for your awesome comment. You have expressed the true objective of Free REpublic.

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

Thank you :)

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

“Today it appears that the evils of our time are so great that even those without much understanding of Western civilization have awakened, and fearing the loss of their rights are now wiling to vote for Trump who has shown himself willing and able to fight for our homeland, tattered and torn as it is.”

Thank you. Appreciate your insightful comment.

[gleeaikin]

Let’s not forget or ignore Putin’s motives in sending Wagners to African countries rich in diamonds, rare earth minerals, etc. Even with Prigozhin dead and Wagners at least partially absorbed into the Russian army, we must not forget Putin’s ultimate goals.

[gleeaikin]

So Russians are talking about hurting German Bridges. And are they also angry at recent statements by the French leader?

Others, potentially on the other side of the arguments are also angry. A group, apparently militant environmentalists, just blew up electric transmission facilities. THis appears likely to cost Elon Musk close to $1 billion in repairs to damaged electrical infrastructure in his German plant. Other damage and power loss occurred in the surrounding area.

https://www.aol.com/finance/elon-musk-german-tesla-plant-123857792.html

Perhaps this is why the Russians are discussing this today? The one bright spot for Musk is that with delayed production, they can get caught up on flagging Tesla sales, and not need additional storage space. There was also another interesting story right after the Musk story. I forget what it was, as I was busy making other comments before I go to do this one.

[gleeaikin]

Unfortunately isolationists were active befor both WW1 and WW2. The roughly 2 year delays before we gave aggressive support greatly increased the number of unnecessary deaths of millions of people, including our own forces. We could have helped nip these wars in the bud. Hopefully we will be more successful with the Ukriane situation.

Unfortunately before we entered WW2, the isolation propagandists included both Stalin guided American Communists and some Conservative Republicans, including some active members of the German/American Bund. After Hitler betrayed his pact with Stalin by jumping the gun on taking over Poland, the American commies had to change their propaganda to helping the allies defeat Hitler.

[USA-FRANCE]

“Also KA-27 helicopter went down with the Sergey Kotov :”

>>>>>>>

A little bonus. :)

[gleeaikin]

I agree with your “should”, “should not” list. However could you please provide more information on Biden having flown in 300,000 immigrants (illegal I presume you implied). What countries were they from, when did this happen? Could quite a lot have been people who arrived legally but overstayed their Visas? Which airports were their final destinations? Do they have jobs and are paying taxes, are they sucking on Uncle’s tit, or have they disappeared without making waves?

[USA-FRANCE]

“So why doesn’t Britain and France declare war on Russia?”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There are only two reasons for us not to declare war on Russia.

1. Nato will declare war only if Russia attacks any NATO country.

2. Russia stole America’s nuclear arms technology.
Thus, both sides can’t start a modern war, without annihilating each other.

However, in traditional Russian behavior it wouldn’t surprise me if they attempted something on the Baltic states, and they would just hope the West would remain idle.
But that would be yet another massive miscalculation by Russia.

[blitz128]

There was an American poll October or November 1941, and even with everything going on the vast majority said stay out of the war

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Biden having flown in 300,000 immigrants.....

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6348335307112

[linMcHlp]

Biden administration ADMITS flying 320,000 migrants secretly into the U.S. to reduce the number of crossings at the border has national security ‘vulnerabilities’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13155765/biden-illegal-migrant-flying-program-national-security-vulnerability.html

[House Atreides]

“ For anybody who wonders . . .”
***************************

I suspect few care.

[House Atreides]

Thank you for the platitudes.

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

“Thank you”

You are very wecome

[BroJoeK]

linMcHlp: "“Isolationist” is not “name calling.”
The term refers to, as you wrote, but I will paraphrase:
A person who believes that his/her country should not engage in certain types of overseas adventures... "

Ever since December 7, 1941 the term "isolationist" refers to people who foolishly, like proverbial ostriches, put their heads in the sand and ignore obvious threats to America's peace and prosperity.

The term "isolationism" goes back to the 1930s, then led by Republicans like Ohio Sen. Taft and North Dakota Senator Nye, among others.
Such people were successful in preventing Pres. Roosevelt from intervening directly in the Second World War until after the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941.
After Pearl Harbor they all supported the US war efforts and later Taft himself supported NATO under Republican Pres. Eisenhower.

Ever since Pearl Harbor, the argument against Isolationism has been that we waited far too long and that, had we supported stronger responses to Axis powers invasions during the 1930s, it would have kept such wars relatively small.

The proof of arguments against Isolationism was Cold War I, now criticized as "endless wars", but in fact, the times since 1945 were relatively peaceful and certainly less costly in blood and treasure than a Third World War would have been.

We won Cold War I by "Peace Through Strength" and our willingness to oppose Russian and Chi-Com imperial aggressions.
Today we see Cold War II, a "War From Weakness", and our return to the Isolationist spirit which now encourages Russians, Chi-Coms and their Axis of Evil Dictator allies to test their old expansionists goals in Europe, the Middle East and Indo-Pacific regions.

linMcHlp: "IMHO, I believe:

1. - we should have defended Kuwait vs. Iraq."
   -
   Why?
   What does blatant aggression against a non-US ally have to do with us?
   In 1990, April Glaspie at the US State Department politely told Saddam Hussein we didn't care what he did in Kuwait.
   So, seriously, it was the Korean War all over again, started because evil dictators believed the USA would stand aside and do nothing.

2. "- we should NOT have further invaded Iraq in 2003"

   Why not?
   Sure, in hindsight anybody can criticize anything, but at the time we were told (and believed) that Saddam had serious Weapons of Mass Destruction, was sponsoring Islamic terrorists against the US, was a mass murderer of Iraqis and still a threat to his neighbors.
   Later investigations showed that Saddam himself believed he had WMDs, that there were terrorists in Iraq and that Saddam did mass-murder his own people.

   So, whatever critique we make today, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

3. "- we should NOT have been messing around in the Balkans during the Clinton Admin."

   Again, why not?
   The 1990s Yugoslav civil wars are estimated to have cost up to 500,000 lives with 4 million displaced from their homes, including 80% of Kosovans.
   Yugoslavia's pre-war population had been circa 24 million, and NATO was the only power on earth which could prevent total genocide by some ethnic groups against others.
   NATO's primary role was peacekeeping and as such suffered no serious casualties among the 50,000 maximum involved.
   Among those peacekeepers were Russian troops.

4. "- we should support Australia, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan"

   US allies and friends in green:

   Sure, but the problem with your list is the same one as in 1950 when Pres. Truman's Secretary of State Acheson listed the countries the US will defend and left Korea off his list (also Taiwan).
   It gave a Green Light to evil communist dictators to invade South Korea, which they promptly did, forcing Truman to revise his list, putting South Korea and Taiwan on it.

   In addition to your list, in the Indo-Pacific region, the US today has military bases in New Zealand, Singapore, Diego Garcia, the Persian Gulf and Red Sea areas.
   We also consider a long list of other countries our friends or allies, all of whom benefit from the deterrent value of "Pax Americana" military power.

5. "- we should NOT support NATO participation in wartime, east of Poland and east of Romania."

   Again, why not?
   "East of Poland" includes Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland, while "east of Romania" includes Bulgaria and Turkey, all of them NATO members.
   Are you going to just hand these countries over to Vlad the Invader?

   And why, exactly, should NATO turn down membership with any western style democratic country which applies for it?
   Why should NATO ever grant a non-NATO dictator authority over who does or does not become a NATO member?

linMcHlp: "And regarding that last point, we should have made clear to Moscow, that Ukraine would NOT be part of NATO, but a Russian move into western Ukraine would probably cause those two countries, Poland and Romania, to take steps to occupy buffer zones in *WESTERN* Ukraine in order to stop Russia from closing up to their borders."

How is it you don't grasp how utterly insane that idea is??

For starters: the vast majority of Ukrainians did not want to be part of NATO before Vlad the Invader's 2014 seizure of Crimea and occupation of the Donbas.
Yes, Ukrainians did want closer ties to the European Union, but Vlad couldn't tolerate that and used it as his pretext to seize Crimea.
Since then, Ukrainians are eager to join not just the EU, but also now NATO too -- and why shouldn't they?
By what authority can Vlad the Invader dictate who will or won't join which organizations?

linMcHlp: "GIVEN that Moscow’s complaint is for Russia to NOT be near NATO . . . then Moscow should NOT move toward NATO."

Do you not grasp that every word out of the mouth of a Russian official is a LIE?
They literally cannot tell the truth about anything because they are not allowed to, and the LIE here is that Russia is somehow afraid of NATO.
They were not afraid years ago when they wanted to join NATO, they are now not really afraid, and Russia would never be afraid of NATO except that NATO stands in the way of Vlad the Invader's reconquest of its Old Soviet and Tsarist Empires.

linMcHlp: ". . . either way, the left would have engaged in its monsterous subterfuge: its “progressive” grande invasion of the U.S.A. by literally millions of illegal aliens, some 300,000 plus flown into the U.S.A. by the Biden Admininistration as a blatant, clear, dangerous, hostile act of treason against the U.S.A."

This has nothing to do with Ukraine -- zero, zip, nada, zilch to do with Ukraine.
Our borders are open today because that's what Democrats want and they will remain open until Democrats are removed from power in Washington, DC, period.
There is no logical or political connection to Ukraine.

linMcHlp: "So, I am a freedom fighter, a conservative, a Republican, a soldier, sailor, and just an ordinary person who opens the doors for people, provides directions for lost visitors, cleans up the mess for people who look around for help, and gets between bad people and good people."

Obviously, freedom is far from your first concern, and sadly, as relates to questions of war and peace, you are the real warmonger, since war is the inevitable result of weakness, and you advocate for American weakness, retreat and isolationism in the world.

Nothing is more guaranteed to bring about World War Three than American weakness, retreat and isolationism.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Although even the Romans eventually forgot.....

[AndyJackson]

the USA has a profound interest in halting the reconstruction of Moscow's empire.

We do? What do you think "Moscow's Empire" would look like? How much of the effort to expand Russian legal jurisdiction to surrounding Russian speaking areas is the result of the US trying to arm those areas to cause the collapse of the Russian federation. Turns out that their weak about to collapse culture is a whole lot more resillient than we imagined. Our globalist geniuses imagined culture does not even matter and began a process of undermining our own so that Americans would fit into the glboal managerialist structure "they" all imagined for us. We are in the midst of a cold civil war ourselves while the Russians seem to be doing just fine in that regard.

Because of our strategic misdirection we cannot even defend our genuine vital interests - keeping sea lines of communication open for international trade. We put our efforts into trying to become an Asian land power rather than strenthen our maritime security. Our force strucutre is all wrong, we are globally overextended, and we are so overextneded at the bank that the cost of rebalancing our forces will only be within our capability if the world will allows us to print even more money - at their expense - to pay for it.

[BroJoeK]

GeneralisimoFranciscoFranco: "Russia can build a war ship for $65 mm?
We should get them to build some for us."

blitz128: "To be fair, it is a “warship “, but not a very large one with a crew of 32-80.
Perhaps large patrol boat is more appropriate, but it also appears it needs escorts to defend itself."

Curiously, at 1,700 tons, Sergey Kotov was roughly the size of an older US WWII destroyer "tin can" like the Farragut class.
As such, it was considerably larger than the 330 ton old US Navy Cyclone class patrol boats, the last of which was decommissioned in 2023.

Sergey Kotov is less than half the size of US Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), which we now consider pretty much useless.

So to find a rough US equivalent, you have to look at the US Coast Guard Famous-class cutters, of which we have 13 in service.

I can't find a unit cost of construction for the Famous-class, but would bet money they cost us a lot more than the $65 million price tag on Russia's ex-Sergey Kotov.

[blitz128]

Sounds reasonable, wouldn’t be surprised if the real cost was even lower once bribes and corruption are removed from cost. With that said what did they get for 65 million, not trying to be confrontational or disputing your facts, but a 76mm gun, a few machine guns and can launch missiles, and was sunk by a few USVs.
Perhaps more of indication of where current naval doctrine is read battleship vs carrier