2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Thats nonsense. What has nato ever invaded?

 

3 hours ago, TEW said:

That’s like saying the USSR putting nukes in Cuba shouldn’t mattered to the US because the USSR wasn’t planning a first strike.

NATO was literally designed to combat Russia. Having a hostile alliance at your doorstep is a matter of national security for any country. Ukraine joining NATO is a legitimate national security issue for Russia, regardless of how evil you might think Putin or Russia are.

I think you both have a point.

If Mexico were cozying up to China for decades and wanted to join a formal military alliance with them, I'm sure some right wing nationalists would be talking about rolling the tanks out south of the border.  Heck, we'd all be worried about it.

On the other hand, Trump wasn't wrong when he called NATO a paper tiger.  Western Europe, collectively, is a very large economy.  That's the power it yields.  Economic scale and sanctions.  The military capability, which is what NATO is actually supposed to be all about...the numbers of troops, artillery, planes, technology...the whole is literally less than the sum of its parts.  It's not some empire that is going to push east.  

Granted, the real concern for Russia shouldn't be NATO, it should be and always has been the US.  NATO is just a large runway across the Atlantic for the US to flex its military influence.  From their perspective, any NATO nation is just one giant potential American military springboard.

42 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

 

Live a mile away from US-19. Can confirm. Worst road in Florida. When I went to Publix earlier the "Team Jesus” Toyota SUV rolled up on the median on 19 and they got out to wear their Jesus Saves sandwich boards. The next county down is notorious along 19. With all the meth heads jaywalking across six lanes when I go down it I feel like I’m driving a car in frogger. 

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

 

 

That right there is horrifying.

41 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I thought you've been saying that we have to let him have Ukraine?

At this point, yeah. The alternative is a nuclear war. It’s not an option. We’ll apply sanctions and send military aid, but that’s the extent of the fight we can put up… which means in all probability Putin takes Ukraine.

That’s what we wish we could prevent, right There was a possibility to prevent this. Not a certainty, but a possibility. You set up an agreement where Ukraine doesn’t join NATO in exchange for concessions on Russian military presence within X distance of their border.

That would at least take Russia’s fear of Ukraine joining NATO off the table and change Putin’s calculus. He’d have to telegraph he was breaking the deal by violating it with the buildup to invasion.

Would it be enough? Who knows? But it would definitely take one of his biggest concerns off the table. And let’s say it didn’t work — you’ve lost nothing (Russia still invades) but gained even more political capital internationally against Russia. It’s literally a free option. You lose nothing and have a chance at avoiding this situation entirely, at least for a while.

Uhh yo WTF. 
 

According to BNO News, Sen. Graham is calling for Putin’s assassination. 
 

BRB eating all the table salt I can find. 

13 minutes ago, Bill said:

Uhh yo WTF. 
 

According to BNO News, Sen. Graham is calling for Putin’s assassination. 
 

BRB eating all the table salt I can find. 

All this time we thought Trump or Biden would get us into World War 3. Graham comes out of no where to make it happen.

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

At this point, yeah. The alternative is a nuclear war. It’s not an option. We’ll apply sanctions and send military aid, but that’s the extent of the fight we can put up… which means in all probability Putin takes Ukraine.

And that's why this whole thing is literally a chess game, a football match, a blinking contest, with human lives as the playing pieces.  

Russia could have flattened Ukraine.  Then went in soft and tried to dance first to avoid what we are now seeing on Twitter/Instagram.  NATO/US could overwhelm Russia with their collective numbers, but instead we get sanctions.

This is a slapping contest between superpowers, with both sides content to let Ukraine burn as the sacrificial lamb so that they don't actually have to resort to slugging each other.  

Due to the well-established concept of mutually assured destruction, modern technology stays out of the conflict and Russia/Ukraine are basically engaging in a deadly version of those old civil-war re-enactments.  We already know the result, and we are just playing out an orchestrated sequence with antiquated technology.

14 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

All this time we thought Trump or Biden would get us into World War 3. Graham comes out of no where to make it happen.

Really I wasn't aware Graham is president, Russia does not give a crap about what he says

There is one thing that is worth noting here.  The USA is very unique in world history in that it is an unchecked military and financial superpower on its own continent (with all due respect to our wonderful Canadian neighbors).  

British Empire, USSR, China...all with regional competing powers then and now.  And while I am as pro-America as it gets, many times WE are the competing regional power through strategic alliances and military reach.  Many of the most horrific war-mongering global monsters in history (and current rivals) always envisioned a world with the US occupying a seat at the superpower table.  That goes for Putin, China, and the leaders behind the axis powers of WW2.  After WW2, we have really been the ones that wanted to clear everyone else from the table.

4 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Really I wasn't aware Graham is president, Russia does not give a crap about what he says

 The country is playing Tucker Carlson for propaganda purposes. They care very much what someone like Graham says. Hell, having an American politician say that Putin needs to be assassinated is great for propaganda.

32 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

 

I think you both have a point.

If Mexico were cozying up to China for decades and wanted to join a formal military alliance with them, I'm sure some right wing nationalists would be talking about rolling the tanks out south of the border.  Heck, we'd all be worried about it.

On the other hand, Trump wasn't wrong when he called NATO a paper tiger.  Western Europe, collectively, is a very large economy.  That's the power it yields.  Economic scale and sanctions.  The military capability, which is what NATO is actually supposed to be all about...the numbers of troops, artillery, planes, technology...the whole is literally less than the sum of its parts.  It's not some empire that is going to push east.  

Granted, the real concern for Russia shouldn't be NATO, it should be and always has been the US.  NATO is just a large runway across the Atlantic for the US to flex its military influence.  From their perspective, any NATO nation is just one giant potential American military springboard.

The Monroe Doctrine applies to both parties. Nuclear powers have a sphere of influence, especially the US. It wasn’t right wing nationalists who ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, for instance.

Maybe the current Democratic Party has zero backbone left, but I don’t think they’re that weak. I very much doubt that they would let Russia or China put military bases within 500 miles of a major US city.

36 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

All this time we thought Trump or Biden would get us into World War 3. Graham comes out of no where to make it happen.

Our of no where?

Dude never met a war he didn’t want to fight.  

Glad all that mayoral experience has paid off 

Just now, Blazehound said:

Glad all that mayor experience has paid off 

Just as long as we don’t use our own oil, right?

Might be time to liberate Venezuela.

Quote

 

Bipartisan bill banning Russian oil sets up clash with White House

The White House said it does not "have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy, and that would raise prices at the gas pump for the American people.”

By JOSH SIEGEL

03/03/2022 05:07 PM EST

A growing bipartisan group of lawmakers released legislation on Thursday that would block imports of Russian oil despite President Joe Biden’s opposition to cutting off the shipments, setting up a potential standoff over how to ratchet up punishments against Moscow for its war on Ukraine.

Lead co-sponsors Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said they would take the blame for a jump in gasoline prices that would likely follow a move to restrict supply from Russia, one of the world’s top energy producers.

"If there was a poll being taken and they said, ‘Joe, would you pay 10 cents more per gallon to support the people of Ukraine and stop the support of Russia?’ I would gladly pay 10 cents more per gallon,” Manchin said at a press conference.

Manchin knocked the White House for opposing the halt on imports of Russian oil based on fears it would further raise pump prices. Crude oil prices touched their highest level since 2008 early on Thursday, and the average retail gasoline price jumped 7 cents overnight to $3.73 a gallon, up $1 from a year ago.

"They are so wrong,” Manchin said, calling White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki "irresponsible” for reiterating that the White House doesn’t back a ban on Russian oil.

At Thursday’s White House briefing, Psaki told reporters that "we don’t have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy, and that would raise prices at the gas pump for the American people.”

Despite the continued White House resistance to a U.S. oil embargo, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this morning that she backs the growing push to ban Russian oil.

"I’m all for that. Ban it,” Pelosi said.

It was a notable endorsement from a party leader at a time when the price at the gas pump has become one of Democrats’ most visible political weaknesses. Biden and his party are battling the highest inflation levels in decades, with the midterm election just eight months away.

Manchin and Murkowski’s bipartisan effort is gaining momentum and stands apart from other partisan bills targeting different aspects of Russian energy. Their bill has a total of 18 co-sponsors, nine from each party, ranging from liberal Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) to GOP hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Graham said Thursday that targeting Russian energy would do more to deter President Vladimir Putin "than any single thing I can think of” given his regime’s dependence on oil and gas revenues.

"What I hope will happen over time is the world will follow our lead,” Graham said. "If you hit him in the oil and gas sector of his economy, he will fail.”

Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) have introduced a matching House version of the bill.

Bill supporters noted that even as they hope other countries will introduce their own bans, the U.S. prohibition would only affect a small slice of the global energy market. U.S. imports of Russian crude and petroleum products dropped sharply over the course of last year as the industry shifted to other sources amid rising tensions in Europe. December’s import total of 405,000 barrels per day was about half the volume recorded in August, according to the DOE’s Energy Information Administration.

Europe relies much more heavily on Russia’s supply, purchasing more than 2.5 million barrels per day, or about half the country’s exports. The EU also gets nearly 40 percent of its gas from Russia. It is not considering stopping those shipments.

"It needs to be reinforced that our legislation is not a global ban on Russian oil and gas,” Murkowski said.

Still, the tightening financial sanctions on Moscow were taking their toll on Russian oil shipments, with traders around the globe declining to take delivery. Prices for at least one type of Russian oil were quoted at $27 a barrel below prevailing crude oil prices.

"The market is shrinking,” Manchin added. "There are very few people buying Russian production. We are not disrupting the world distribution.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/03/bill-ban-russia-oil-white-house-00013962

 

Lindsey Graham right now:

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I went to HS in Tarpon Springs.  19 was a treat as a young driver.  I would go to CWater every now and then.  What a scene.  

Being from that area, what can you teach me about catching tarpon.  I just got a place on one of the keys near there, south of Siesta, and I need to catch one.  

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I went to HS in Tarpon Springs.  19 was a treat as a young driver.  I would go to CWater every now and then.  What a scene.  

Heh, no ish. Could have been worse. You could have grown up in New Port Richey. 
 

Not sure when you graduated, but even in the 8 years I’ve been down here it’s changed. And not for the better. 

14 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Might be time to liberate Venezuela.

I worry China might think it’s time to liberate Taiwan.

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

No clue.  I only lived there for about 3 years.  Was born in Cape May NJ. The last thing I was doing during my time there, all in High School, was thinking about fishing Tarpon.  
 

Sorry.  I failed you.  

Would have been nice to derail CVON into a tarpon fishing thread.  Oh well. 

 

 

41 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Being from that area, what can you teach me about catching tarpon.  I just got a place on one of the keys near there, south of Siesta, and I need to catch one.  

Boca Grande? 
 

Work out your forearms. 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Just as long as we don’t use our own oil, right?

We do.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

I worry China might think it’s time to liberate Taiwan.

Stop worrying. It's coming. They are just biding their time.