October 5, 20232 yr Just now, VanHammersly said: Without aid they will definitely take Ukraine. It's not even up for debate. But that's what you want, because you'd happily allow a bunch of fascist thugs to murder women and children if it lets you losers scream, "Look! Biden gave Russia Ukraine!" It's pretty gross but ya'll are sick F'ers. If you feel this strongly, why shouldnt we send our troops?
October 5, 20232 yr "I feel comfortable giving my buddy some old guns I have laying around so he can defend his family, but sending my kids over to protect his farm seems like too much" Yeah totally weird to feel this way. 🤷♂️
October 5, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: Lol I've never said a single thing about the original sticker price of a bullet or whatever the hell youre talking about. I thought we were talking about intrinsic value, ask paco he knows all about it We are taking about a lot of things that you don't understand. So you pose the argument that the US should sell the equipment to get a return, an ROI on the original investment in the equipment. Choice (1) sell the crap at wholesale prices to get more $$ that can subsidize the welfare State of WV or (2) donate the equipment, already a sunk cost that's fully depreciated in an action that costs a foe billions of dollars and depletes their weapons inventory, an ROI many multiples of the value of the equipment. Mikey dum dum takes door number 1.
October 5, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: A country doesnt need to be fighting a war to take weaponry. We do that all the time. We literally just sold $500M worth to Taiwan. What war are they in? Ukraine isnt an official ally of the US Ukraine has definitely committed war crimes in this conflict. Youre a stooge if you think they havent. And they're a corrupt nation by almost any measure. There are many reports where we've completely lost track of the funds we've sent Anything else? Yes Mike, because selling $500 million worth of outdated US weapons is the exact same as selling billions of dollars of outdated Iranian weapons you Fing dolt. The market for the latter is people in active conflict or people looking to start an active conflict, not first world country defense systems. So once again, be specific. Suggest a better specific buyer for those weapons.
October 5, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: If you feel this strongly, why shouldnt we send our troops?
October 5, 20232 yr 35 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: If you feel this strongly, why shouldnt we send our troops? Because that would A.) Get a lot of American soldiers killed B.) Cost a lot more C.) Put us in direct conflict with Russia And I realize you'd love that and pinch your weiner over it because then you could point to dead American soldiers and say "Look! Biden did that" but the rest of us wouldn't because we're not sick F'ers. Meanwhile, right now we're not losing soldiers, paying significantly less than we would if we were fully involved and we're keeping ourselves out of a hot war with one of our most belligerent foes while Russia's military and economy gets decimated. It's literally the most just war we've fought since WW2 but partisan idiots like yourselves are against it because Trump tells you you're supposed to be. It's pathetic.
October 5, 20232 yr 14 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: If you feel this strongly, why shouldnt we send our troops? that's not a serious question.
October 5, 20232 yr 38 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: Sure sure, literally never watch/read a minute of any of that, but whatever makes you feel justified for supporting Bidens perpetuwar Stopping America's greatest enemy from marching across Europe and protecting our national security interests. Oh yeah there's the whole stopping genocide thing as well. Stuff that real Americans stand for.
October 5, 20232 yr 19 minutes ago, Next_Up said: We are taking about a lot of things that you don't understand. So you pose the argument that the US should sell the equipment to get a return, an ROI on the original investment in the equipment. Choice (1) sell the crap at wholesale prices to get more $$ that can subsidize the welfare State of WV or (2) donate the equipment, already a sunk cost that's fully depreciated in an action that costs a foe billions of dollars and depletes their weapons inventory, an ROI many multiples of the value of the equipment. Mikey dum dum takes door number 1. The problem is that you guys keep reframing the argument, putting words in my mouth, and presenting false dichotomies because this is emotional for you. If you can sell the equipment and get ROI then its not a sunk cost
October 5, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Because that would A.) Get a lot of American soldiers killed B.) Cost a lot more C.) Put us in direct conflict with Russia And I realize you'd love that and pinch your weiner over it because then you could point to dead American soldiers and say "Look! Biden did that" but the rest of us wouldn't because we're not sick F'ers. Meanwhile, right now we're not losing soldiers, paying significantly less than we would if we were fully involved and we're keeping ourselves out of a hot war with one of our most belligerent foes while Russia's military and economy gets decimated. It's literally the most just war we've fought since WW2 but partisan idiots like yourselves are against it because Trump tells you you're supposed to. It's pathetic. Not to mention it isn't necessary at this point. Also going back earleir in the thread, Trumptard Mike was also in favor of aiding Ukraine until right wing media told him not to.
October 5, 20232 yr 19 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Yes Mike, because selling $500 million worth of outdated US weapons is the exact same as selling billions of dollars of outdated Iranian weapons you Fing dolt. The market for the latter is people in active conflict or people looking to start an active conflict, not first world country defense systems. So once again, be specific. Suggest a better specific buyer for those weapons. Did this make sense when you typed it? How about any of the African nations being overrun by Russian-backded coups?
October 5, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, Gannan said: Not to mention it isn't necessary at this point. Also going back earleir in the thread, Trumptard Mike was also in favor of aiding Ukraine until right wing media told him not to. How is it not necessary when the war is at a virtual stalemate? You guys are so concerned about Ukraine, so why not end it swiftly? You don't care enough about women and children? And yes I was ok with it in a limited capacity months and tens of billions of dollars ago. Quite the posts
October 5, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: Did this make sense when you typed it? How about any of the African nations being overrun by Russian-backded coups? Oooo supporting a nation against Russia. That's actually not a bad idea mike. But I said specific. "Africa" isn't specific. Care to narrow it down?
October 5, 20232 yr 7 minutes ago, Gannan said: Stopping America's greatest enemy from marching across Europe and protecting our national security interests. Oh yeah there's the whole stopping genocide thing as well. Stuff that real Americans stand for. Marching across Europe? And we're gonna stop that with outdated equipment and loads of cash for Ukraine? So American, a true patriot
October 5, 20232 yr Just now, DEagle7 said: Oooo supporting a nation against Russia. That's actually not a bad idea mike. But I said specific. "Africa" isn't specific. Care to narrow it down? Lol pick one, you've got lots of choices
October 5, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: The problem is that you guys keep reframing the argument, putting words in my mouth, and presenting false dichotomies because this is emotional for you. If you can sell the equipment and get ROI then its not a sunk cost That is correct, my mistake in using sunk cost. Go with fully depreciated asset. The argument is the same.
October 5, 20232 yr 16 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: that's not a serious question. Why not?? You guys want to be the moral police, just curious how much.
October 5, 20232 yr Funny how Republicans used to Stand for Democracy and Freedom and against Russia, now they want Russia to take over Ukraine and threaten the rest of Europe.
October 5, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: How is it not necessary when the war is at a virtual stalemate? You guys are so concerned about Ukraine, so why not end it swiftly? You don't care enough about women and children? And yes I was ok with it in a limited capacity months and tens of billions of dollars ago. Quite the posts I'm probably the only poster here that wouldn't be opposed to sending troops (maybe TJ). What I would have done was put US troops in Ukraine before Russia invaded. Putin would have backed down. That said stalemates and quagmire favor the defender. We don't need to send troops to win.
October 5, 20232 yr Just now, Mike31mt said: Why not?? You guys want to be the moral police, just curious how much. I've refuted this with you over an over. No one is wanting to be the Bush-era world police. The US doesn't give a strategic crap about Africa and therefore there is no action. Ukraine is a strategic action that hobbles a foe. Economic sanctions against Russia, check, Depleting Russia's military assets, check, gathering intelligence about Russia's weapon systems, check, watching the integration of drones in modern warfare, check, ruining the Russian economy, check, toppling Putin -- regime change -- checkmate if it happens. You keep invoking this straw-man argument to substantiate your position. Nobody is arguing that position against you, only you, you project it onto others to try and create some credibility for yourself.
October 5, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, Gannan said: I'm probably the only poster here that wouldn't be opposed to sending troops (maybe TJ). What I would have done was put US troops in Ukraine before Russia invaded. Putin would have backed down. That said stalemates and quagmire favor the defender. We don't need to send troops to win. I actual appreciate your honesty and I think that would have probably worked As far as your last statement, thats really the crux of my point. Im not sure what the end game is for anyone at this point. What does a "win" look like? And let's say we maintain current levels of support--how long does it take?
October 5, 20232 yr I knew Mike would like that post from Ganon because it lays out something Biden could have done that he didn't. Literally the only thing Mike cares about is Old Man Bad. Dead women and children? Meh. Our worst enemy succeeding? NBD. The spread of autocracy? What're you gonna do. Old Man bad? I actually appreciate your honesty.
October 5, 20232 yr 23 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: Lol pick one, you've got lots of choices Soooo you got nothing...again... Shocking. I'm shocked.
October 5, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, Next_Up said: I've refuted this with you over an over. No one is wanting to be the Bush-era world police. The US doesn't give a strategic crap about Africa and therefore there is no action. Ukraine is a strategic action that hobbles a foe. Economic sanctions against Russia, check, Depleting Russia's military assets, check, gathering intelligence about Russia's weapon systems, check, watching the integration of drones in modern warfare, check, ruining the Russian economy, check, toppling Putin -- regime change -- checkmate if it happens. You keep invoking this straw-man argument to substantiate your position. Nobody is arguing that position against you, only you, you project it onto others to try and create some credibility for yourself. I merely posed that question to make a point. You are all acting like Im horrible and Un-American for wanting to put a cap on the rubber stamped blank check for Ukraine. Its absurd.
Create an account or sign in to comment