Post New

Hungary just approved Sweden for NATO membership.

Thanks, Vlad!!

Except for the US, nations are lining up to oppose you! Good job!

Except for the US,

So we've done nothing for the Ukrainians? That's interesting, given that we've been the ones teaching their Air Force to fight...

...for the last 30 years.

What have you done for Ukraine lately? Cut off their funding, that's what. Thirty years ago doesn't matter, they need munitions TODAY.

What have you done for Ukraine lately? Cut off their funding, that's what. Thirty years ago doesn't matter, they need munitions TODAY.

Search for the callsigns FORTE10, FORTE11 and FORTE12 on a site like Flightradar.com.

sweden is the real deal.
even when on their own, vlad was too much a coward to think about breaching them.
now the entire baltic sea and arctic theater gets a superior force.

putin gets the tic-tac-toe strategy level award...in chess.

What have you done for Ukraine lately? Cut off their funding, that's what. Thirty years ago doesn't matter, they need munitions TODAY. - 1pg

------------

We already discussed this. The Ukraine bill will not provide any ammunition in the near term. So using words like "today" are intended to stampede a quick decision, ie, it is just too damn critical to delay even one more day.


This is not to say, passing the is bill in unimportant. It is very important as a political statement to show our unwavering support. And the bill is needed to ensure future ammo supplies needs are met. But lets be realistic that the bill does nothing to relive any short term Ukrainian ammunition shortages.

BMHWe already discussed this. The Ukraine bill will not provide any ammunition in the near term. So using words like "today" are intended to stampede a quick decision, ie, it is just too damn critical to delay even one more day.

No, we didn't discuss it. The fact is it was brought up in 2022, it was talked about in 2023, with the situation becoming extremely urgent in October 2023. It was soooo urgent, that when the Senate made it clear it was tied to the border, the Senate got very serious and negotiated the best deal you'll see in 20 years, and your fearless leader killed it for an election issue.

And now you want to say we are stampeding a quick decision Mike? You aren't really for democracy in Ukraine are you Mike? You just pay lip service and then seize whatever talking point comes down the pike.

Do you want to replenish our stock piles and give democracy a chance in Ukraine? It doesn't look like you do Mike. Sad. This is a no brainer Mike if you want to protect democracy and value our allies too. You made a bad choice.

And now you want to say we are stampeding a quick decision Mike? You aren't really for democracy in Ukraine are you Mike? You just pay lip service and then seize whatever talking point comes down the pike.

Do you want to replenish our stock piles and give democracy a chance in Ukraine? It doesn't look like you do Mike. Sad. This is a no brainer Mike if you want to protect democracy and value our allies too. You made a bad choice. = Lapsody

-------------------

I am surprised that you can't see, or can see and won't admit, my simple point.

But before I restate that point, let me get this out of the way, I support Ukraine, I want them to prevail, I believe in democracy, etc etc etc.

So please don't construe my noticing a flaw in the argument used to support it as some sort of proof I not only want Ukraine to fall but that in general I don't even support democracy.

Sheesh.

The argument flow

1) Ammo Shortage, people are dying, pass this aid bill ASAP.

2) That's a lot of money

3) It is a lot of $$ but the need is urgent and we need to pass it. BTW, most of the $$ will be spent domestically to replenish US supplies.

4) OK, makes sense, and this domestic spending angle does make the big $$ seem a little easier to take.

5) bhm asks: While we are writing this big and completely necessary check, can we at least admit to ourselves, that this bill will not provide any ammo to Ukraine in the near term given procurement cycles, time to ramp up US production, and so forth. Any ammo from the bill will likely not reach Ukraine for quite some time.

6) bhm still values democracy when he questions why the bill is still presented as an answer to a present day ammo shortage in Ukraine.

I am surprised that you can't see, or can see and won't admit, my simple point.

But before I restate that point, let me get this out of the way, I support Ukraine, I want them to prevail, I believe in democracy, etc etc etc.

So please don't construe my noticing a flaw in the argument used to support it as some sort of proof I not only want Ukraine to fall but that in general I don't even support democracy.

But I do understand your point Mike. I need no lecture. You want to say since we can't produce for x,y,z years why should we rush? Why the stampede?...as you put it.

And I point out that this is going on since 2022, it's 2024, and you want to say stampede? That's the first thing you said. Do you actually think that the Senators - who are more privy to what is going on than we are - and making extremely hard compromises - were rushing things? And the big answer to it is to wait some more - we have time why.

As I said there's money in there to gear up. But the answer is laying all around you Mike, if you just look for it. Here's Time:

<SNIP> If the U.S. approves funding for Ukraine—the Senate passed $60 billion in aid last week but it faces steep hurdles in the House—it should be possible to get around 1.3 million rounds of ammunition to the country in 2024, which would allow Ukraine to hold the line. With European investment to expand production, significantly more can be provided in 2025, meeting a level that would enable Ukrainian offensive operations. But with Europe still expanding production capacity, Ukraine will face critical shortages in the next few months unless the U.S. steps in.

Russia understands the importance of artillery in a war of attrition. While Russian artillery use has been crude and has underperformed, the sheer volume of shells it is expending has given Moscow a decisive battlefield edge today. The country is set to produce another 1.3 million rounds of 152 mm caliber ammunition in 2024, along with around 800,000 rounds of 122 mm caliber ammunition. Alongside a remaining stockpile of around 3 million rounds, the delivery of over 1 million rounds from North Korea, and production contracts signed with North Korea, Belarus, Iran, and Syria, Russia will continue to have firepower dominance throughout the year.

In spite of these advantages, Russia’s firepower dominance will potentially diminish over time. Although its shell production can increase, Russia has so far relied heavily on taking barrels from old Soviet systems it held in storage. By 2025, these stocks will be running low and Russia’s capacity to forge barrels is insufficient to meet its future needs.

The result is that through 2025 the accuracy of Russian guns, and the number that are available at any given time, may diminish. That may give Ukraine and its backers some hope in the longer run. But the critical question is whether the U.S. is willing to sustain the fight for the next year, before the tide begins to turn once again in Ukraine’s favor.

https://time.com/6694885/ukraine-russia-ammunition...

I hope you understand that we understand the war of attrition. About 70% of the destruction in this war is from artillery fire. We needed to do this yesterday Mike. Doing it today is late. Thinking this is a stampede is incredibly naive.

You can find different expressions on this theme if you look around.

5) bhm asks: While we are writing this big and completely necessary check, can we at least admit to ourselves, that this bill will not provide any ammo to Ukraine in the near term given procurement cycles, time to ramp up US production, and so forth. Any ammo from the bill will likely not reach Ukraine for quite some time.

This is a day for day delay. Every day delay in approving the bill delays ammo arriving in Ukraine by a day. Delay for 30 days and the arrival date is delayed 30 days. This is simple Scheduling 101 on any project, the critical path goes through approving the funding. Therefore, it is urgent to approving the funding any further delay is supporting Russia. (And the past delay supported Russia).

Craig

6) bhm still values democracy when he questions why the bill is still presented as an answer to a present day ammo shortage in Ukraine.

Remember, the only reason they're really all for giving Ukraine anything is that they think Republicans are against it.

Let's say there was no Ukraine conflict. Suppose we said in that case, "A lot of US ammunition manufacturing dates from literally World War II. That along with the nation's (glaring lack of) shipbuilding resources is something that needs serious investing". There would be *zero* support from the people current wringing their hands.

DopesterRemember, the only reason they're really all for giving Ukraine anything is that they think Republicans are against it.

No. Occam's razor - we want to support democracy, see NATO as our allies, and don't want to let either down. You love to post mischaracterizations.

Let's say there was no Ukraine conflict. Suppose we said in that case, "A lot of US ammunition manufacturing dates from literally World War II. That along with the nation's (glaring lack of) shipbuilding resources is something that needs serious investing". There would be *zero* support from the people current wringing their hands.

How so? You know the big military buildup that Reagan gets complete credit for started under Carter. Carter? !#@%$&^%$ Carter? Yes, and Reagan acknowledged it. My father retired a full bird Colonel from the Army. 30 years. The line of military service goes back to the revolution and I'm a member of the SAR. Plenty of us believe in the rules based order that has developed to keep the peace, and also know we have to be ready.

No. Occam's razor - we want to support democracy, see NATO as our allies, and don't want to let either down.

Nah. That's one of the things you tell yourself. It's okay, we're all the heroes of our own stories.

You know the big military buildup that Reagan gets complete credit for started under Carter. Carter? !#@%$&^%$ Carter? Yes, and Reagan acknowledged it.

Carter wasn't a completely horrible President. He's an honorable guy who was wrong a lot.
Reagan, rightly, gets credit for transforming America's military in the 1980's because that's exactly what he did. The machine that destroyed Saddam's armies in Gulf War I was a direct result of the Reagan-era buildups in technology, training and capability. That's not in dispute.

Plenty of us believe in the rules based order that has developed to keep the peace, and also know we have to be ready.

Good for you.

Nah. That's one of the things you tell yourself.

No, it's far more likely that Biden has requested aid, and Reps are saying "no" just because it is Biden.

Back in the day, Tip O'Neil had no more love of Russia than Reagan did. They wrestled over domestic policy, but support of our allies, and opposing Russia (USSR) at every opportunity was largely bipartisan. It's the Reps who have changed, which is why I'm no longer associated with them.

No, it's far more likely that Biden has requested aid, and Reps are saying "no" just because it is Biden.

You might ask yourself why that might be. You'll likely reach the conclusion that Republicans are purely political animals and are following their default mean spirited instincts. I'm not going to try to change your mind.

It's the Reps who have changed,

Serious question.
Do you really believe that Republicans are in love with Russia?
Again. I'm not going to try to change your mind.

Some Republicans (enough to have an effect) are mean-spirited. Heck, they ousted McCarthy simply because he negotiated a deal with Democrats. They actually said there should be no negotiation, but he did it, and they ousted him for it.

There may be a contingent of Dems of similar attitude, but they are small and ineffectual. The Reps' contingent is vocal and has a lot of influence.

Are they in love with Russia? I think many don't care. Effectively, modern isolationists. They don't care about Ukraine, NATO, Europe...none of it. Echoes of the 30s when people like Lindburgh were saying that Europe's problems weren't our problems (he was one of the more prominent and influential people of that time). Others (the more gullible) think that if Trump is OK with Russia, then they're OK with Russia. After all, Trump said a lot of nice things about Putin, so he must be OK. Right?

I don't actually view the Reps as monolithic. But when they enact (or block) policy, it's a convenient shorthand to say "Reps did this", because they did, even if not all Reps agreed with it.

ME: Occam's razor - we want to support democracy, see NATO as our allies, and don't want to let either down.

DopeNah. That's one of the things you tell yourself. It's okay, we're all the heroes of our own stories.
------------------------------------
ME: I think you're out of touch Dope, the polls below show Dems are 72% for maintaining NATO obligations, Republicans 56% overall, MAGA Repubs 47%.
------------------------------------
SNIP Democratic respondents were more likely than others to say that the U.S. should maintain its obligation to support other NATO countries in times of conflict. About 72 percent of Democrats agreed, while 53 percent of independent respondents and 56 percent of Republicans said the same.

Among Republicans, self-identified “MAGA” Republicans — or those closely aligned with former President Trump, who uses the “Make America Great Again” motto for his campaign — were less likely to support the U.S. sticking with its NATO allies. Forty-seven percent of MAGA Republicans said the commitment should be upheld, while 62 percent of self-identified “non-MAGA” Republicans said the same, the survey found.SNIP

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4485715-m...
------------------------------------
ME: And as for Democracy, y'all have been saying we're not a Democracy, but a Republic for so long it appears to have stuck:
------------------------------------
SNIP Perhaps even more troubling, this willingness to deprioritize democracy corresponded closely to partisan interests. For instance, in September 2020, 81% of Republicans said it would be important for the loser of that year’s election to acknowledge the winner. In November — the month when the election was called for Biden, and Trump refused to concede defeat — that figure was 31%.

“The results show that support for foundational principles of liberal democracy are discouragingly soft and inconsistent,” the study’s authors conclude, adding: “There is a significant segment of the population that may be willing to embrace or accept the cause of authoritarian figures if and when it is in their partisan and political interests.”

Plenty of other polling evidence points toward the same conclusion. A CNN poll from October found that 67% of likely Republican primary voters in South Carolina said Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, if true, are not relevant to his fitness for the presidency. SNIP
https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2024/02/21/are-...
----------------------------------

ME Dope, when I said Reagan acknowledged it, I meant it.

SNIP "Mr. Reagan said today, ''When we first took office we inherited a Navy that had shrunk from nearly 1,000 ships to less than 500, and planes that couldn't fly for want of spare parts.'' Carter Proposal Cited

''My predecessor had called attention to this and had proposed a five-year expansion of the defense budget,'' Mr. Reagan continued. Recently, Mr. Reagan telephoned The New York Times and told a reporter that he felt ''very bad'' about Mr. Carter's criticisms, and he praised the former President's record on military preparedness." SNIP

So that puts the lie to this:

Dope:Let's say there was no Ukraine conflict. Suppose we said in that case, "A lot of US ammunition manufacturing dates from literally World War II. That along with the nation's (glaring lack of) shipbuilding resources is something that needs serious investing". There would be *zero* support from the people current wringing their hands.

All of your points have been refuted with support.

when people like Lindburgh were saying that Europe's problems weren't our problems (he was one of the more prominent and influential people of that time).

He was also very much a Nazi sympathizer.

But now we have Trump supporters who are not just sympathizers but call themselves Nazis and white supremacists. The Republican Party has really gone to hell.

Among Republicans, self-identified “MAGA” Republicans — or those closely aligned with former President Trump, who uses the “Make America Great Again” motto for his campaign — were less likely to support the U.S. sticking with its NATO allies. Forty-seven percent of MAGA Republicans said the commitment should be upheld, while 62 percent of self-identified “non-MAGA” Republicans said the same, the survey found.

Clearly many MAGAs don't know squat about history.

Dope1: Do you really believe that Republicans are in love with Russia?

The leader of the republican party called the invasion of Ukraine “smart” and “savvy,” Tucker Carlson marveled at the beauty of the Moscow subway and was awed by the cheap prices in a Russian supermarket (but neglected to tell his viewers that over 60% of Russians spend at least half of their monthly income on food), senator Tommy Tuberville said "Putin is on top of his game,” senator Ron Johnson said “Putin will not lose the war,” MTG said "NATO has been supplying the neo-Nazis in Ukraine with powerful weapons” and used the hashtag #NATONazis, Candace Owens said America is at fault for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, representative Paul Gosar said “Ukraine is not our ally. Russia is not our enemy,” Dinesh D’Souza said “Putin – unlike someone else we know – LOVES his country and FIGHTS for its interests,” Mike Flynn said that Putin is “a very strong leader. He’s been in charge for a long time. And he’s not going to put up with the nonsense he’s seeing in Europe,” and Nick Fuentes said “I wish Putin was president of America”... so I'm gonna go with 'yes'.

so I'm gonna go with 'yes'.

Good for you. It's nice to see strong programming in action.

I think you're out of touch Dope, the polls below show Dems are 72% for maintaining NATO obligations

LOL. Most of them don't know what "NATO" stands for or where its headquarters is.
And if you people loved NATO so much, you'd actually insist that member nations live up to their end of the deal. Why don't you?

And as for Democracy, y'all have been saying we're not a Democracy, but a Republic for so long it appears to have stuck:

Because we're a Constitutional Republic. That's basic civics, by the way.

All of your points have been refuted with support.

LOL. That was a hypothetical. You've not refuted anything.

And yes, there would be *zero* support for a peacetime program to upgrade America's shipyards and ammo plants.

re·pub·lic

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. - OXFORD

Republics are representative democracies Dope. Basic.

So what you are saying is that we are a Constitutional 'Representative Democracy', not a Democracy. But y'all have trouble with thinking you're a democracy if it gets in the way.

There is no basic requirement that NATO members meet the perceived requirements of MAGA folk in the northwest or anywhere else in the USA.

What previous presidents told NATO members

As president, Trump repeatedly claimed that before he pressured NATO members to increase their defense spending, US presidents did not even ask them to do so. He singled out former President Barack Obama in his comments at the rally on Saturday. After referring to NATO members Trump said he pressured himself, he continued: “And then I hear that they like Obama better. They should like Obama better.
You know why? Because he didn’t ask for anything.”

Facts First: Trump’s claims are false. Both Obama and his predecessor, President George W. Bush, repeatedly pressed other NATO members to spend more on defense, though their public language was less confrontational than Trump’s.

At a news conference in Belgium in 2014, Obama said, “If we’ve got collective defense, it means that everybody has got to chip in. And I have had some concerns about a diminished level of defense spending among some of our partners in NATO – not all, but many. The trend lines have been going down.” In a speech in Germany in 2016, Obama said, “Every NATO member should be contributing its full share – 2% of GDP – towards our common security, something that doesn’t always happen. And I’ll be honest, sometimes Europe has been complacent about its own defense.” In a speech to Canada’s Parliament in 2016, he said, “As your ally and as your friend, let me say that we’ll be more secure when every NATO member, including Canada, contributes its full share to our common security.”

In a speech in the Czech Republic in 2002, before a NATO summit, Bush said that every NATO member needs to make a military contribution to the alliance, and “for some allies, this will require higher defense spending.” Bush and top administration officials continued for the rest of his presidency to push for increased spending. While visiting Romania in 2008, Bush said, “Building a strong NATO alliance also requires a strong European defense capacity. So at this summit, I will encourage our European partners to increase their defense investments to support both NATO and EU operations.”

Republics are representative democracies Dope. Basic.

That's right. I'm not sure why you keep getting this wrong.

Democracy = you the citizen vote on every policy. In the US, we don't roll that way.
Republic = You elect people who vote on your behalf.

There is no basic requirement that NATO members meet the perceived requirements of

Lulzies. As I said, all you Newfound Fans of NATO don't actually know a thing about the alliance.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.ht...

In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness.

Not a MAGA number. It's what they themselves agreed to

So. You're wrong, again.

You understand you just nuked your point about the 2% "MAGA" number, right?

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.