Russia Russia Russia

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, devnull said:

 

You might as well, since you paid for it.

[Jauronimo]

On 5/11/2022 at 11:41 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

The stuff about your posting aside (I don’t agree with his assessment of you as I stated), and the “nobody” who tweeted, let’s focus on the substance. 
 

We - and this administration specifically - just left billions of dollars of equipment and weaponry in Afghanistan in their rush to pull out (for polling / political purposes, not strategic purposes), which are now in the hands of the people who were our enemy (for over two decades) until very recently. There’s a historical record, factual and proven, that we lost millions, if not hundreds of millions in hard cash in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We spent unaccounted for millions in Syria (a war we were never officially involved in) trying to buy allies - some of whom were very unsavory types - through cut outs who turned out to be even worse. 
 

It’s not speculation to presume a large percentage of the nearly $40b in cash and weapons will not go into the intend hands. It’s the expectation. According to the language of the bill itself the distribution is classified and being run by Langley, not congress. That’s done to avoid public oversight and tamp  down the operational blowback they build in to their calculations. 
 

Or is your position that there will be no waste or misappropriation of any part of that $40 billion of your money? And if your answer to that is no, that’s not your position, then let me ask you how big of a percentage of that money/weaponry would have to go missing/fall into the wrong hands for it to be a concern for you personally? 
 

Because it’s going to happen. The blowback  always does. That’s why they invented a term for it. 
 

 

I would say any comparison of the will of the Afghanis or Iraqis to the will of the Ukrainians is extremely poor.  3 months of standing up against a superior force compared to 3 days until falling to the toyota pickup army should tell you everything you need to know about the difference between Ukraine and Afghanistan.  The same applies to Iraq.  Neither "country" (Iraq or Afghanistan) has any national identity and trying to build an army to defend something people have no belief in, from an adversary that was their own countrymen was always going to fail.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, we armed people whose main motivation was getting whatever the US was handing out for as long as we were there handing things out. We armed them, we funded them, and then we still did all the real fighting for them!    

 

Ukraine has a national identity, albeit a complicated one in the east.  Ukraine is fighting an invading army rather than a civil insurgency.  Ukraine is doing all the fighting!  There is no shortage of proof that weapons that have been given to Ukraine are actually being used by the intended recipients who are a highly motivated defense.

 

Since a lot has been said on the topic of corruption, Afghanistan and Iraq are literally two of the most corrupt places on the planet.  Go straight to the bottom of the list.  You'll scroll up for a bit before you get to the horrible Ukraine.  You will pass Russia on the way.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021

 

It is actually the definition of speculation to "presume a large percentage of the nearly $40b in cash and weapons will not go into the intended hands" based on nothing more than it is distinctly possible and poor comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Its also contradictory to your belief that we are headed for a drawn out conflict.  When still engaged in active war with a belligerent neighbor (that has invaded you twice in 8 years) and fighting for something you actually believe in, using and keeping the weapons you gave been given is the logical response. Selling off all your new toys is also a poor choice when you'll be looking for NATO membership, EU funds to rebuild, and integration with western Europe in the near future.  

 

But we can't always trust people to act in their own self interest and there is a threat that business as usual will win in Ukraine.  I do have concerns that arms could wind up in the wrong hands.  Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq where it was obvious our weapons and money could be easily funneled to ISIL, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban by people whose only allegiances were familial/tribal, its not so clear to me here. 

 

Again, poor comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan leave me asking well, how much $$, how many guns, and to who?  Posting about all things plausible or possible doesn't do anything for me.  I am concerned about the possibility money and weapons landing in the wrong hands.  The possibility or plausibility of this event alone is not a compelling argument that a majority of guns and money will fall in the wrong hands.  

 

I look forward to a barrage of "even 1% is a HUGE amount!" type of posts even though the original context was 90% of arms and money will be falling in the wrong hands.  

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

5 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

It is actually the definition of speculation to "presume a large percentage of the nearly $40b in cash and weapons will not go into the intended hands" based on nothing more than it is distinctly possible and poor comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

 

It's not speculation to presume that a large percentage of that money isn't going to Ukraine, though.  It's written in the House bill.

[IDBillzFan]

3 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

It's not speculation to presume that a large percentage of that money isn't going to Ukraine, though.  It's written in the House bill.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why they're giving six figures to that widow.

[Nanker]

5 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I'm still trying to figure out why they're giving six figures to that widow.

Obviously she deserves it obviously. She married him when he was eighty two! 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

51 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I would say any comparison of the will of the Afghanis or Iraqis to the will of the Ukrainians is extremely poor.  3 months of standing up against a superior force compared to 3 days until falling to the toyota pickup army should tell you everything you need to know about the difference between Ukraine and Afghanistan.  The same applies to Iraq.  Neither "country" (Iraq or Afghanistan) has any national identity and trying to build an army to defend something people have no belief in, from an adversary that was their own countrymen was always going to fail.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, we armed people whose main motivation was getting whatever the US was handing out for as long as we were there handing things out. We armed them, we funded them, and then we still did all the real fighting for them!   

 

 

First, thanks for the reply  None of this is meant to be combative, just a discussion: 

 

Let's start with:  the "will of the Afghanis" you referenced (and its mountains) created what's called the graveyard of empires for a reason. They held off the Soviets, the Americans as well as some other big heavy hitters throughout history. Each time they were vastly outnumbered and outgunned. Yet they remain while their invaders empires crumbled to dust. That's not me saying it. That's the historical record. Everyone fights hard for their homelands, but the Afghanis have a longer history of success than almost anywhere else (again, thanks to their spirit but also the geography).

 

But that aside, the point in bringing up Afghanistan isn't about the Afghanis at all. It's about this administration. This administration just left billions of dollars of equipment in-country that is now in the hands of our "enemy" (who were our friends a few decades back). They chose to do this - not because of a strategic need, but because of a political desire to change the national narrative. They abandon billions to the hands of our "enemy" to make themselves more comfortable. 

 

That's relevant. That's a precedent. That's where the focus is, not on the feeble governments of traditional tribal lands cobbled together in the aftermath of our invasion. 

 

Because now we've pumped nearly $100b of cash and weapons into a country that's even more corrupt than Afghanistan. It's more corrupt because it's fully westernized in terms of its bureaucracy. And that makes corruption and graft EASIER, not more difficult. The point which you've avoided answering is how can anyone expect anything other than misappropriation of those funds and weapons when we've literally just witnessed this administration do that very thing. It's not ancient history, it's not a completely different national security team and POTUS... It's the same guys who've been wrong every time they've tried to run this gambit. From Iraq, to Libya, to Afghanistan, to Ukraine. 

 

57 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

Ukraine has a national identity, albeit a complicated one in the east.  Ukraine is fighting an invading army rather than a civil insurgency.  Ukraine is doing all the fighting!  There is no shortage of proof that weapons that have been given to Ukraine are actually being used by the intended recipients who are a highly motivated defense.

 

 

Respectfully, Ukraine is not doing all the fighting. We are providing operational intelligence (that doesn't just come from satellites and SIGINT) and have boots on the ground as "advisors". In addition to Malcolm Nance of course: 

 

 

Mind you, that isn't a complaint. Of course we, the mighty USA, would be doing such a thing, and should be doing such a thing. If this is where it stopped, then I'd have no problem. I'm not an isolationist. I believe in the ability of the military to be a tool for the greater good when it's used appropriately. We have the best, or second best, special forces and intelligence apparatus in the history of existence. We can, and should, use those tools to promote stability when we can. 

 

However, that requires a CiC who's in it for the right reasons or at least is competent. Joe ain't. 

 

Further, I do not dispute the Ukrainians are using some western weaponry effectively. Though I'd caution no one knows what's happening on the ground. Be wary of reports of Ukraine "winning" (if they're winning so handedly, why are they blowing up bridges all over the eastern front?), just as I'd be wary of reports that Russia is "winning". We are in the middle of a major disinformation war between Moscow and DC/Brussels. No one knows for sure what's happening on the ground.

 

But the question posed wasn't that, it was where the weapons (and cash) are truly going. Some is going to warfighters and warfighting - but all of it? Half of it? Three quarters? Less?

 

The answer is we don't know. And based on history and the people in charge of the disbursements, we have to assume a chunk of that is going elsewhere for kickbacks. To assume anything but that is to be ignorant of the players involved and very recent history.   

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

 

Since a lot has been said on the topic of corruption, Afghanistan and Iraq are literally two of the most corrupt places on the planet.  Go straight to the bottom of the list.  You'll scroll up for a bit before you get to the horrible Ukraine.  You will pass Russia on the way.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021

 

 

Afghanistan and Iraqi corruption aren't in dispute.  They are very corrupt. But as noted above, Afghanistan in particular, is tribal in nature. That's both easier and harder to corrupt than say a modern, westernized bureaucracy like Ukraine. Ukraine is a corrupt cesspit of a nation - thanks in large part to our influence. Note:

 

 

Ukraine has been in bed with the most corrupt and sociopathic western officials for decades. And in turn, many western officials have used Ukraine as a piggy bank. From McCain, to Pelosi, to Mitch, to Romney - western leaders have been turning Ukraine out. Just like Russia has been doing from the other direction. 

 

Ukraine is not a bastion of purity. And with it slipping into full scale war, those impurities only become larger and more dominating. 

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

 

It is actually the definition of speculation to "presume a large percentage of the nearly $40b in cash and weapons will not go into the intended hands" based on nothing more than it is distinctly possible and poor comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

 

I would contend it's folly to ignore the pattern in Iraq and Afghanistan when the situation in Ukraine is being run by the same people who were provenly corrupt in the desert and mountains. The corruption isn't isolated to Afghanistan or Iraq or Ukraine, it starts here at home with our own leaders. They're the ones working the angles to line their own pockets. And those faces haven't changed. 

 

Again, we just left billions of dollars in Afghanistan because this administration made a political not strategic decision to abandon ship. That had nothing to do with Afghani politicians or corruption - but our own corruption. Our own flawed leadership. That's what's being drawn on for the comparison more than anything. Because those same people are still in charge. Why should anyone assume anything BUT a repeat of what they've done not once, but twice in the past 20 years they've had the wheel? 

 

If anything, it's wild speculation to assume this time it'll be different just because it's in Ukraine. That's the kind of flawed logic and blind homerism the narrative makers are hoping you'll make as they jam this war down our throats. 

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

  Its also contradictory to your belief that we are headed for a drawn out conflict.  When still engaged in active war with a belligerent neighbor (that has invaded you twice in 8 years) and fighting for something you actually believe in, using and keeping the weapons you gave been given is the logical response. Selling off all your new toys is also a poor choice when you'll be looking for NATO membership, EU funds to rebuild, and integration with western Europe in the near future.  

 

 

And yet - it's already happening...

 

 

 

It's not a contradiction to my premise that the west wishes to draw this out for as long as possible. They are printing money out of thin air to do just that. The people I'm talking about in the west do not care about inflation. They don't care about winning in Ukraine. They care about maintaining a steady need for arms, bullets, and bombs while they strip mine the corpse of Ukraine and the United States in the process. They use the narrative to get us to look one way while they steal our wallets and laugh over the graves of our children. 

 

That's what they did for two decades of endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya - and it's the same people at the wheel now. 

 

You are expecting a tiger to change it's stripes. I'm not. 

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

 

But we can't always trust people to act in their own self interest and there is a threat that business as usual will win in Ukraine.  I do have concerns that arms could wind up in the wrong hands.  Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq where it was obvious our weapons and money could be easily funneled to ISIL, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban by people whose only allegiances were familial/tribal, its not so clear to me here. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

Again, poor comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan leave me asking well, how much $$, how many guns, and to who?  Posting about all things plausible or possible doesn't do anything for me.  I am concerned about the possibility money and weapons landing in the wrong hands.  The possibility or plausibility of this event alone is not a compelling argument that a majority of guns and money will fall in the wrong hands.  

 

 

You keep harping that it's a poor comparison. It's not. It's not comparing Ukraine to Afghanistan in a vacuum. It's comparing our leadership then and now. It's relevant and recent history we can draw from. To ignore it would be folly, not smarts. Because the issue isn't the difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine - the issue is the people at the helm here at home. Those are the people who are in the targeting box. 

 

My issue is not with anyone in the Ukrainian government, or Iraqi, or Afghani. They have the right and duty to fight for their homes, and use whatever propaganda tricks they can. My issue is with people in my own government who have betrayed us over and over. People who have pushed two decades of endless war on us, costing us trillions of dollars in national treasure, making us poorer and more divided in the process - all while they've profited from the misery and violence they've caused.

 

In your mind is the world safer in your mind after 20+ years of the War on Terror? Or is it more unstable, more on fire? Is America stronger today because of that 20+ years of war, $3+ trillion spent (in one theater alone), and thousands of servicemembers dead?  If your answer is no, then why would things turn out differently in Ukraine when the same people who engineered and ran the past two decades of debacles are still in charge? 

 

The comparison isn't between the countries embroiled in war. They each are unique in their own way to become cluster-&#%$s. The common thread is our involvement and how we have continually made things worse while claiming to be there for "all the right reasons". 

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

I look forward to a barrage of "even 1% is a HUGE amount!" type of posts even though the original context was 90% of arms and money will be falling in the wrong hands.  

 

It'll be WAY more than 1%. 

 

It already is. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Again, if this is true - why do they need another 40 billion dollars immediately?

 

 

The answer is: don't believe anything the mainstream media or on the ground reporters are saying about this conflict. No one knows what's up, and the people who do aren't sharing. 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I'm still trying to figure out why they're giving six figures to that widow.

 

In the "If I Were President" fantasy: I'd veto any bill that wasn't single-purposed.

 

Look, you want to give the widow Young a year's House salary?  Fine...but put it in its own bill, not as a rider to Ukrainian "relief."

[Jauronimo]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

First, thanks for the reply  None of this is meant to be combative, just a discussion: 

 

Let's start with:  the "will of the Afghanis" you referenced (and its mountains) created what's called the graveyard of empires for a reason. They held off the Soviets, the Americans as well as some other big heavy hitters throughout history. Each time they were vastly outnumbered and outgunned. Yet they remain while their invaders empires crumbled to dust. That's not me saying it. That's the historical record. Everyone fights hard for their homelands, but the Afghanis have a longer history of success than almost anywhere else (again, thanks to their spirit but also the geography).

 

But that aside, the point in bringing up Afghanistan isn't about the Afghanis at all. It's about this administration. This administration just left billions of dollars of equipment in-country that is now in the hands of our "enemy" (who were our friends a few decades back). They chose to do this - not because of a strategic need, but because of a political desire to change the national narrative. They abandon billions to the hands of our "enemy" to make themselves more comfortable. 

 

That's relevant. That's a precedent. That's where the focus is, not on the feeble governments of traditional tribal lands cobbled together in the aftermath of our invasion. 

 

Because now we've pumped nearly $100b of cash and weapons into a country that's even more corrupt than Afghanistan. It's more corrupt because it's fully westernized in terms of its bureaucracy. And that makes corruption and graft EASIER, not more difficult. The point which you've avoided answering is how can anyone expect anything other than misappropriation of those funds and weapons when we've literally just witnessed this administration do that very thing. It's not ancient history, it's not a completely different national security team and POTUS... It's the same guys who've been wrong every time they've tried to run this gambit. From Iraq, to Libya, to Afghanistan, to Ukraine. 

 

 

Respectfully, Ukraine is not doing all the fighting. We are providing operational intelligence (that doesn't just come from satellites and SIGINT) and have boots on the ground as "advisors". In addition to Malcolm Nance of course: 

 

 

Mind you, that isn't a complaint. Of course we, the mighty USA, would be doing such a thing, and should be doing such a thing. If this is where it stopped, then I'd have no problem. I'm not an isolationist. I believe in the ability of the military to be a tool for the greater good when it's used appropriately. We have the best, or second best, special forces and intelligence apparatus in the history of existence. We can, and should, use those tools to promote stability when we can. 

 

However, that requires a CiC who's in it for the right reasons or at least is competent. Joe ain't. 

 

Further, I do not dispute the Ukrainians are using some western weaponry effectively. Though I'd caution no one knows what's happening on the ground. Be wary of reports of Ukraine "winning" (if they're winning so handedly, why are they blowing up bridges all over the eastern front?), just as I'd be wary of reports that Russia is "winning". We are in the middle of a major disinformation war between Moscow and DC/Brussels. No one knows for sure what's happening on the ground.

 

But the question posed wasn't that, it was where the weapons (and cash) are truly going. Some is going to warfighters and warfighting - but all of it? Half of it? Three quarters? Less?

 

The answer is we don't know. And based on history and the people in charge of the disbursements, we have to assume a chunk of that is going elsewhere for kickbacks. To assume anything but that is to be ignorant of the players involved and very recent history.   

 

 

Afghanistan and Iraqi corruption aren't in dispute.  They are very corrupt. But as noted above, Afghanistan in particular, is tribal in nature. That's both easier and harder to corrupt than say a modern, westernized bureaucracy like Ukraine. Ukraine is a corrupt cesspit of a nation - thanks in large part to our influence. Note:

 

 

Ukraine has been in bed with the most corrupt and sociopathic western officials for decades. And in turn, many western officials have used Ukraine as a piggy bank. From McCain, to Pelosi, to Mitch, to Romney - western leaders have been turning Ukraine out. Just like Russia has been doing from the other direction. 

 

Ukraine is not a bastion of purity. And with it slipping into full scale war, those impurities only become larger and more dominating. 

 

 

I would contend it's folly to ignore the pattern in Iraq and Afghanistan when the situation in Ukraine is being run by the same people who were provenly corrupt in the desert and mountains. The corruption isn't isolated to Afghanistan or Iraq or Ukraine, it starts here at home with our own leaders. They're the ones working the angles to line their own pockets. And those faces haven't changed. 

 

Again, we just left billions of dollars in Afghanistan because this administration made a political not strategic decision to abandon ship. That had nothing to do with Afghani politicians or corruption - but our own corruption. Our own flawed leadership. That's what's being drawn on for the comparison more than anything. Because those same people are still in charge. Why should anyone assume anything BUT a repeat of what they've done not once, but twice in the past 20 years they've had the wheel? 

 

If anything, it's wild speculation to assume this time it'll be different just because it's in Ukraine. That's the kind of flawed logic and blind homerism the narrative makers are hoping you'll make as they jam this war down our throats. 

 

 

And yet - it's already happening...

 

 

 

It's not a contradiction to my premise that the west wishes to draw this out for as long as possible. They are printing money out of thin air to do just that. The people I'm talking about in the west do not care about inflation. They don't care about winning in Ukraine. They care about maintaining a steady need for arms, bullets, and bombs while they strip mine the corpse of Ukraine and the United States in the process. They use the narrative to get us to look one way while they steal our wallets and laugh over the graves of our children. 

 

That's what they did for two decades of endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya - and it's the same people at the wheel now. 

 

You are expecting a tiger to change it's stripes. I'm not. 

 

 

 

 

 

You keep harping that it's a poor comparison. It's not. It's not comparing Ukraine to Afghanistan in a vacuum. It's comparing our leadership then and now. It's relevant and recent history we can draw from. To ignore it would be folly, not smarts. Because the issue isn't the difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine - the issue is the people at the helm here at home. Those are the people who are in the targeting box. 

 

My issue is not with anyone in the Ukrainian government, or Iraqi, or Afghani. They have the right and duty to fight for their homes, and use whatever propaganda tricks they can. My issue is with people in my own government who have betrayed us over and over. People who have pushed two decades of endless war on us, costing us trillions of dollars in national treasure, making us poorer and more divided in the process - all while they've profited from the misery and violence they've caused.

 

In your mind is the world safer in your mind after 20+ years of the War on Terror? Or is it more unstable, more on fire? Is America stronger today because of that 20+ years of war, $3+ trillion spent (in one theater alone), and thousands of servicemembers dead?  If your answer is no, then why would things turn out differently in Ukraine when the same people who engineered and ran the past two decades of debacles are still in charge? 

 

The comparison isn't between the countries embroiled in war. They each are unique in their own way to become cluster-&#%$s. The common thread is our involvement and how we have continually made things worse while claiming to be there for "all the right reasons". 

 

 

It'll be WAY more than 1%. 

 

It already is. 

Dude, the will of the ANA to defend their shiny new democracy is/was non-existent.  Thats who we funded and armed in the latest go round.  That is who immediately sold their gear to OUR enemies because they could not care less about the concept of a united Afghanistan and were skeptical of the "saviors" who occupied their nation.  That is who knew it was only a matter of time before the warlords and Taliban would be back in power.  To make matters worse, our military tasked with training and arming them knew it was rampant and nothing was done.  

 

The same thing played out all over Iraq trying to build a police force and national army to maintain order.  The US was the invaders and we armed a lot drug addicts, criminals, and the dregs of society so that they could kill their own countrymen trying to suppress an insurgency with no end in sight.  A less reliable, less motivated, and less engaged fighting force has never been so heavily armed and funded.  

 

Comparing the arming and funding of the Ukrainian forces to trying to make an army out of dudes like the ones in this video and then drawing long range conclusions from that comparison is not advisable.  Especially not after 3 months of seeing a real force on the ground, doing their own dirty work, at the expense of their own lives, and using NLAWs and Stingers to great effect.

 

Any comparisons between arming an actual, largely professional, Ukrainian army and nation building in areas of the world that have no semblance of national identity is poor.  When your identity as a country boils down to the fact that a couple hundred years ago a couple of Brits drew lines on a map with no regard for cultural, religious, or historical differences - coalition building, hearts and minds, picking winners is likely to be a fools errand.  These fundamental differences cannot be ignored in comparing or contrasting the War on Terror and arming or funding Ukraine.

 

If history is any indication, Ukraine will funnel all their misappropriated guns and artillery to Africa like the good old days where they will have no affect on anything we care about.

 

 

[Dubs]

It’s very simple, if the actual goal was the same as the stated goal to help Ukrainians and stop them from getting displaced or killed, we’d be doing everything in our power to broker a settlement on this. 
 

but we’re not, and the innocent people the politicians and media keep referencing are going to continue to suffer and die. 
 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

26 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Dude, the will of the ANA to defend their shiny new democracy is/was non-existent.  Thats who we funded and armed in the latest go round.  That is who immediately sold their gear to OUR enemies because they could not care less about the concept of a united Afghanistan and were skeptical of the "saviors" who occupied their nation.  That is who knew it was only a matter of time before the warlords and Taliban would be back in power.  To make matters worse, our military tasked with training and arming them knew it was rampant and nothing was done.  

 

The same thing played out all over Iraq trying to build a police force and national army to maintain order.  The US was the invaders and we armed a lot drug addicts, criminals, and the dregs of society so that they could kill their own countrymen trying to suppress an insurgency with no end in sight.  A less reliable, less motivated, and less engaged fighting force has never been so heavily armed and funded.  

 

You're still doing all you can to avoid the actual issue being presented. It isn't about Iraqis or Afghanis - but our own leadership. The same people who thought it was a brilliant idea to arm the criminals and drug addicts you're referencing are still calling the shots here. They have proven their strategic planning is terrible, and their own corruption is undeniable. 

 

That doesn't change because the theater of operations moved from the mountains to Eastern Europe. 

 

28 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

 

Comparing the arming and funding of the Ukrainian forces to trying to make an army out of dudes like the ones in this video and then drawing long range conclusions from that comparison is not advisable.  Especially not after 3 months of seeing a real force on the ground, doing their own dirty work, at the expense of their own lives, and using NLAWs and Stingers to great effect.

 

 

Again, you're dodging the actual issue raised. Hundreds of millions went missing in Iraq and Afghanistan because of WESTERN LEADERS/Strategic decisions/corruption within the IC not the Iraqis and Afghanis. 

 

Those people are still there. Still running point. 

 

Do you think their avarice and corruption are gone because the theater moved to Eastern Europe? Right into the very nation that's been the center of western based corruption for many decades now? 

 

32 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

 

Any comparisons between arming an actual, largely professional, Ukrainian army and nation building in areas of the world that have no semblance of national identity is poor.  When your identity as a country boils down to the fact that a couple hundred years ago a couple of Brits drew lines on a map with no regard for cultural, religious, or historical differences - coalition building, hearts and minds, picking winners is likely to be a fools errand.  These fundamental differences cannot be ignored in comparing or contrasting the War on Terror and arming or funding Ukraine.

 

Ukraine is not as unified as you're making it out to be. Their history is full of division and sects - encouraged by both western and eastern forces. 

 

But again, you're continuing to dodge the issue being raised. 

 

Allow me to simplify to avoid us talking past one another: 

 

Do you, J, believe Biden and his administration are corrupt or do you believe they are straight shooters? 

[Jauronimo]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're still doing all you can to avoid the actual issue being presented. It isn't about Iraqis or Afghanis - but our own leadership. The same people who thought it was a brilliant idea to arm the criminals and drug addicts you're referencing are still calling the shots here. They have proven their strategic planning is terrible, and their own corruption is undeniable. 

 

That doesn't change because the theater of operations moved from the mountains to Eastern Europe. 

 

 

Again, you're dodging the actual issue raised. Hundreds of millions went missing in Iraq and Afghanistan because of WESTERN LEADERS/Strategic decisions/corruption within the IC not the Iraqis and Afghanis. 

 

Those people are still there. Still running point. 

 

Do you think their avarice and corruption are gone because the theater moved to Eastern Europe? Right into the very nation that's been the center of western based corruption for many decades now? 

 

 

Ukraine is not as unified as you're making it out to be. Their history is full of division and sects - encouraged by both western and eastern forces. 

 

But again, you're continuing to dodge the issue being raised. 

 

Allow me to simplify to avoid us talking past one another: 

 

Do you, J, believe Biden and his administration are corrupt or do you believe they are straight shooters? 

I'm not dodging anything.  The goal posts have moved so far from the vapid tweet I responded to.  I responded to the idea that 90% of resources will be completely misappropriated due to Ukrainian corruption and you used Iraq and Afghanistan as precedent. We have discussed this idea for a page.

 

Now you're telling I'm dodging the point because the counterparty in a transaction is suddenly irrelevant and the resources will be lost before they get there due to Biden's corruption.  

 

Honest discussion does not necessitate that I follow you down every alley or rabbit hole and answer tangents at your whim.  

 

 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Jauronimo

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

I'm not dodging anything.  The goal posts have moved so far from the vapid tweet I responded to. 

 

Forget the tweet. Focus on our conversation. The goalposts haven't moved there. 

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

 I responded to the idea that 90% of resources will be completely misappropriated due to Ukrainian corruption and you used Iraq and Afghanistan as precedent. We have discussed this idea for a page.

 

Correct, but you didn't address the concern, you built a strawman instead. The concern is our leadership, not the history of Afghanistan. 

 

If our leadership is corrupt and on the take, then logic would dictate that regardless of where they were deploying assets, the risk of corruption, misappropriation, and outright theft would be the same. 

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

Now you're telling I'm dodging the point because the counterparty in a transaction is suddenly irrelevant and the resources will be lost before they get there due to Biden's corruption.  

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the epicenter of the corruption in question, the driving force behind the push for endless war lies in our own halls of governance, not Iraq or Afghanistan's. It's their record in Iraq and Afghanistan that lends credence to this position. 

 

You have yet to address that. You've gone out of your away to avoid it. 

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

Honest discussion does not necessitate that I follow you down every alley or rabbit hole and answer tangents at your whim.  

 

I'm not asking you to follow every rabbit hole. I'm asking the key, fundamental question which so far you've yet to address but speaks to the core issue we're discussing. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm not trying to play "gotcha". I'm asking a sincere question about your opinion to avoid talking past one another. 

 

Let me rephrase, maybe you'll find it easier: 

 

An honest examination of the money sunk into the war on terror for 2+ decades shows a clear pattern of misappropriation/waste of military equipment and monies. This is not speculation, this is not even controversial. It's the factual record. What is up for debate is whether or not that history is the result of outright corruption and avarice, or merely ineptitude. 

 

It's one or the other, or a combination of the two. There isn't another option. 

 

It's also a fact that the current NatSec leadership group has direct ties to the blunders from both the Obama and Bush eras. These aren't new kids on the block trying new ideas, they're the same people running the same plays from the neocon/neoliberal think tank playbooks. A playbook we know ends in disaster nine times out of ten. 

 

So if that's the case, if that's the reality of the situation at the leadership level here at home, what gives you faith that this time they'll get it right and do it by the numbers, above board, when they've yet to accomplish that feat in any other conflict they've either engineered or joined in the past 22 years of Regime Change addicted foreign policy agendas?

 

What gives you faith that Biden, the guy who's been in power for over 50 years and has never weighed in on a foreign policy matter and gotten it right (he was wrong about Iraq, he was wrong about OBL, he was wrong about Syria, he was wrong about Afghanistan)? 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Deranged Rhino

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Dubs said:

It’s very simple, if the actual goal was the same as the stated goal to help Ukrainians and stop them from getting displaced or killed, we’d be doing everything in our power to broker a settlement on this. 
 

but we’re not, and the innocent people the politicians and media keep referencing are going to continue to suffer and die. 
 

 

 

The better the Ukranians do, the less willing they and their Western partners will be to settle.

 

The problem may some day be when Ukraine wants to settle this conflict and the U.S. has other ideas about whether and when the fighting should stop. Ukraine won't be able to say much -- they were facing an existential threat and had to come asking for our assistance.  Our ultimate goals don't likely match up with theirs.  And the topper will be that the longer this goes, the more people will face severe hunger in countries our Government (a) doesn't care about, and (b) wants to squeeze for geopolitical purposes.

 

Edited May 16, 2022 by snafu

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

It is a paradox.  The better the Ukranians do, the less willing they and their Western partners will be to settle.

 

The problem may some day be when Ukraine wants to settle this conflict and the U.S. has other ideas about whether and when the fighting should stop. Ukraine won't be able to say much -- they were facing an existential threat and had to come asking for our assistance.  Our ultimate goals don't likely match up with theirs.  And the topper will be that the longer this goes, the more people will face severe hunger in countries our Government (a) doesn't care about, and (b) wants to squeeze for geopolitical purposes.

 

 

They never have, which is a core problem with the entire situation. 

 

We know the west privately told Ukraine NATO membership was off the table, while publicly telling the world it was an option. We, the west, literally tied Ukraine to a stake like the goat in the T-Rex cage in Jurassic Park and then are shocked that it got eaten. 

 

I've argued that the "shock" isn't genuine, but the expected response. The West doesn't want Ukraine to be anything other than a wedge to use against Moscow and a piggy bank for their own corruption. Moscow probably feels the same but tilted their way. 

 

That's why it sucks to be Ukraine. They can't win regardless of the outcome of the fighting. 

 

That's why, to me, the whole idea that the security of the Ukraine is worth risking a nuclear exchange with the globe's largest nuclear power is a non starter. Because it's not. Ukraine is of no strategic value to the US or West other than to the people who have their hands in the Ukraine's pockets. To those leaders, Ukraine's survival is tied to their own bottom line. 

 

Hence, here we are.  

[Deranged Rhino]

Reason #205 why we shouldn't be taking anything at face value coming out of Ukraine about how the war is going: 

 

They aren't just getting complex things wrong, they're getting EASY stuff wrong. 

 

Because the narrative is more important to some than facts. Which is how you know you're in an information war first, and a kinetic war second. 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Again, if this is true - why do they need another 40 billion dollars immediately?

 

 

The answer is: don't believe anything the mainstream media or on the ground reporters are saying about this conflict. No one knows what's up, and the people who do aren't sharing. 

 

 

If Ukraine is winning so handedly, why is it an urgent need? 

 

Could it be it's not urgent for Ukraine but urgent for the US Senators and Congressmen who want their cut before the complete collapse of the republic? 

 

Nah.

[Ann]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Could it be it's not urgent for Ukraine but urgent for the US Senators and Congressmen who want their cut before the complete collapse of the republic? 

Before the people the MAGA King endorsed get voted into office and Congress no longer has the slush fund votes. 

[IDBillzFan]

Thanks goodness they got this passed. 

 

It was urgent. Very urgent. Putin-lovers can suck it.