This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.  (Read 100774 times)

Battlemaster
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • I am a Bill Maher Democrat.
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #855 on: June 24, 2022, 11:50:04 PM »
Yeah, people just let Hitler have Austria, then Belgium, the sudaten, bohemia, lithunia, etc.

Worked out great, didn't it?
Fuck the fascist right and the fascist left.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #856 on: June 25, 2022, 12:57:46 AM »
The sane reason not to help the Ukraine except for hopes and prayers is because 1) there is no compelling US interest, 2) US interventionism has a really bad history, and 3) Russia has a legitimate strategic interest.

Withdraw from NATO, and let Europe play with Russia, if they care. They're rich enough. It's about time they spent some of that money on defense.
Look at your first and third points. If your third point is true then your first point is false, as opposing the strategic interests of its enemies (i.e., Russia) is in the strategic interests of the USA.

As for point two, isolationism has a terrible history of its own.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #857 on: June 25, 2022, 02:40:29 AM »
I don't think estimates of Russian war spending are reliable - but to give an idea, the Moscow Times estimated Russian spending at $300M per day in the war, while Newsweek cited an outside estimate of $900M per day.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/18/russian-defense-spending-surges-to-300m-per-day-amid-ukraine-war-a77712

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-spending-estimated-900-million-day-ukraine-war-1704383

While I don't doubt that there is plenty of cruft in the Ukraine aid package, at least it's going towards a known problem of the Russian war on Ukraine. What I find far more ridiculous is the U.S. spending $770 billion every year in *peacetime* on its military.

Perhaps we shouldn't spend quite that much, I would agree. But look to things like our refusal to help out Ukraine due in part to military concerns and the fact that analysts are unsure an undistracted USA could protect Taiwan and prevent vicious Chinese expansion if it came down to it... and I don't things are quite so clear cut as you and I would like. IF we are to reduce spending significantly, we will need to both temper that reduction, and acquire alliances that more than pull their own weight, moreso than they do now, and as I think most of our diplomats would say, that's not as easy as it sounds.

Hi, KindaMeh. You're new here - and this has been discussed before.

Briefly, my position is that all countries should militarily cooperate to prevent and/or punish wars of conquest. I believe it's vital to make wars of conquest non-profitable, because if attempted conquerors get rich from plundering countries, it encourages more conquest. We've had a relatively good run since WWII of reduced wars, and I think that's largely thanks to the lessons of WWII that countries have cooperated globally to oppose wars of aggression.

I have been opposed to the vast majority of U.S. military actions, but my three exceptions are WWII, the Korean War and the Kuwait War. There, hostilities were started by one-sided military conquest, and we worked with allies to oppose the aggressors. For similar reasons, I support Ukraine against Russia. I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not justified by legitimate security concerns - it is a one-sided war of conquest.

However, in our other interventions, the fighting was most often started by us -- invading another country to conquer it or install a government to our liking. Our policy of permanently placing U.S. troops and warships all over the globe supports the latter far more than the former. We should have a standing army sufficient to defend our own borders, but that's far less than what we have - especially given that we're a nuclear superpower.

KindaMeh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 568
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #858 on: June 25, 2022, 03:49:51 AM »
I don't think estimates of Russian war spending are reliable - but to give an idea, the Moscow Times estimated Russian spending at $300M per day in the war, while Newsweek cited an outside estimate of $900M per day.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/18/russian-defense-spending-surges-to-300m-per-day-amid-ukraine-war-a77712

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-spending-estimated-900-million-day-ukraine-war-1704383

While I don't doubt that there is plenty of cruft in the Ukraine aid package, at least it's going towards a known problem of the Russian war on Ukraine. What I find far more ridiculous is the U.S. spending $770 billion every year in *peacetime* on its military.

Perhaps we shouldn't spend quite that much, I would agree. But look to things like our refusal to help out Ukraine due in part to military concerns and the fact that analysts are unsure an undistracted USA could protect Taiwan and prevent vicious Chinese expansion if it came down to it... and I don't things are quite so clear cut as you and I would like. IF we are to reduce spending significantly, we will need to both temper that reduction, and acquire alliances that more than pull their own weight, moreso than they do now, and as I think most of our diplomats would say, that's not as easy as it sounds.

Hi, KindaMeh. You're new here - and this has been discussed before.

Briefly, my position is that all countries should militarily cooperate to prevent and/or punish wars of conquest. I believe it's vital to make wars of conquest non-profitable, because if attempted conquerors get rich from plundering countries, it encourages more conquest. We've had a relatively good run since WWII of reduced wars, and I think that's largely thanks to the lessons of WWII that countries have cooperated globally to oppose wars of aggression.

I have been opposed to the vast majority of U.S. military actions, but my three exceptions are WWII, the Korean War and the Kuwait War. There, hostilities were started by one-sided military conquest, and we worked with allies to oppose the aggressors. For similar reasons, I support Ukraine against Russia. I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not justified by legitimate security concerns - it is a one-sided war of conquest.

However, in our other interventions, the fighting was most often started by us -- invading another country to conquer it or install a government to our liking. Our policy of permanently placing U.S. troops and warships all over the globe supports the latter far more than the former. We should have a standing army sufficient to defend our own borders, but that's far less than what we have - especially given that we're a nuclear superpower.

If this was recently in this thread then I apologize, I also may have inferred more from your words than perhaps I should have on your position.


So, I still stand by my earliest unquoted (presumably due to having less relevance to what you posted, not an attack) argument that the amount we’re sending probably isn’t enough by itself. Also, I know you didn’t say otherwise, but I personally think maybe we should have acted sooner. Or Biden shouldn’t have outright told Putin no troops would be deployed in the case of Ukraine itself being invaded, because why give away your hand, and if your opinion on intervention in the case of an instance like this were to be followed, shouldn’t we defend them as a group of nations ex:NATO.

Regarding your overall theory and motivations, I respectfully disagree to some degree that intervention is only warranted in cases of nation on nation violence. Ex: France helped us gain rights like representation and all our Constitutional rights by seceding from England. And if the citizens of a nation are genuinely oppressed by their government and beg for help, I feel we may at least have a moral duty to assist given the right circumstances. It’s a reach, but maybe if we intervened in Syria before the jihadists co-opted the revolution things might have been at least a bit less terrible. Also, as examples of “conquest” that ultimately did not hurt the world or the conquered from my perspective in the long run, see WW2 where we sort of ran for a while Japan and Germany but legit helped out them and the world by rebuilding. Even terrible ideas with iffy execution, like the invasion of Iraq, arguably gave some semblance of rights, democracy and the like for the people there after. And I think that’s in part because they weren’t traditional wars for conquest and directly taking a nation’s land and resources.  Then doves demanded a sketchily conceived withdrawal from Afghanistan, showing they didn’t have a monopoly on getting to call out bad decisions. Heck, we provided no real help or structure in the wake of the collapse of Libya, which might have happened without our help and seemed to me like our duty to assist in the recovery from if we helped cause it at all. IDK, I don’t support unjust wars or wars of literal conquest, but I don’t know if that necessarily means all governments deserve to survive indefinitely at the expense of their people, or that at some point an active intervention couldn’t ever be warranted involving force. Also, if legitimate strategic defense interest could excuse Russia’s invasion from the perspective of us interfering (which I don’t think it would, but you did mention that in whether intervention was justified), I feel that sets a very bad precedent in realpolitik I wouldn’t condone or want. But also one that would excuse the US acting in its own preventative interests.

As for our current military efficacy, that’s kinda what I meant to highlight the weaknesses of within the quote you used. We didn’t have the force to stop with the Allie’s that could actually be mustered both Ukraine and Taiwan if they had made us choose, which they kinda did. This is an example of the potential inability of us and our regional allies to save Taiwan with China’s current unexpanded military if they commit, from an admittedly biased source: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/05/31/asia/china-taiwan-invasion-scenarios-analysis-intl-hnk-ml/index.html . So our current “overbloated military” while it is perhaps overfunded, is arguably not enough to do the interventions with allies I think I understand you to have said we should do when a democracy (or any other state, so I guess that might also mean terrible oppressive ones) is invaded for conquest. So I feel like I’m still making a legit point in that quote even with your stated position.

That said, I acknowledge we will likely still have our differences in opinion. And your stance, while not my own, is still I feel principled in its own way and I can respect that. I’m just speaking my bit now that you’ve outlined your stance.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #859 on: June 25, 2022, 09:15:32 AM »
The sane reason not to help the Ukraine except for hopes and prayers is because 1) there is no compelling US interest, 2) US interventionism has a really bad history, and 3) Russia has a legitimate strategic interest.

Withdraw from NATO, and let Europe play with Russia, if they care. They're rich enough. It's about time they spent some of that money on defense.
Look at your first and third points. If your third point is true then your first point is false, as opposing the strategic interests of its enemies (i.e., Russia) is in the strategic interests of the USA.

As for point two, isolationism has a terrible history of its own.
Not wanting to get involved in every war across the world is isolationist? That's roughly equivalent to calling someone "peaceful" because they don't punch every single person they meet.

Russia is a weak regional power, and they're concerned about enemies on their immediate border. The US is the sole world power, is half the world away, and has no concerns about the security of its border, except for the occasional caravan of poor people. They're not even vaguely equivalent.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #860 on: June 25, 2022, 09:26:36 AM »
Yeah, people just let Hitler have Austria, then Belgium, the sudaten, bohemia, lithunia, etc.

Worked out great, didn't it?
You think the Russian economy and military is equivalent to Germany in the 1930s? That's laughable. Do you think this war has proved the Russian military is capable of rolling over eastern Europe in a blitzkrieg? That's... lmfao territory. And where was all the concern when Russia invaded Croatia? It's funny how this war has become the righteous war for all the ideopathic paladins, but nobody cared a few years ago. Plus, this war could have been stopped before it started with a couple security guarantees, like no Ukraine in NATO. It could probably be ended right now, with a face-saving concession of some kind for Putin. But that assumes the people who are all charged up about sending the sons (and a few daughters) of their neighbors to war want to stop the conflict, and not promote their egos.

I

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #861 on: June 25, 2022, 01:00:34 PM »
The sane reason not to help the Ukraine except for hopes and prayers is because 1) there is no compelling US interest, 2) US interventionism has a really bad history, and 3) Russia has a legitimate strategic interest.

Withdraw from NATO, and let Europe play with Russia, if they care. They're rich enough. It's about time they spent some of that money on defense.
Look at your first and third points. If your third point is true then your first point is false, as opposing the strategic interests of its enemies (i.e., Russia) is in the strategic interests of the USA.

As for point two, isolationism has a terrible history of its own.

"Its enemies, i.e. Russia."  I deny your premise that Russia is an enemy, or at least wasn't until we provoked them.  They haven't done a damn thing to us since the USSR fell, while we've continually antagonized them and invaded their allies Serbia and Syria with no provocation towards us whatsoever.  They were falsely blamed for installing a puppet U.S. president in 2016, while it's actually the U.S. who has installed a puppet president in Ukraine.  (I hope you've heard the conversation where Victoria Nuland is literally discussing who the U.S. is going to install as Ukraine's president). 

It's in the strategic interests of the U.S. to (1) be energy-independent, (2) manufacture its own stuff, and (3) guard its own borders.  None of those three things are important to Democrats; in fact, they are opposed to them.

Battlemaster
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • I am a Bill Maher Democrat.
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #862 on: June 25, 2022, 01:21:27 PM »
The sane reason not to help the Ukraine except for hopes and prayers is because 1) there is no compelling US interest, 2) US interventionism has a really bad history, and 3) Russia has a legitimate strategic interest.

Withdraw from NATO, and let Europe play with Russia, if they care. They're rich enough. It's about time they spent some of that money on defense.
Look at your first and third points. If your third point is true then your first point is false, as opposing the strategic interests of its enemies (i.e., Russia) is in the strategic interests of the USA.

As for point two, isolationism has a terrible history of its own.

"Its enemies, i.e. Russia."  I deny your premise that Russia is an enemy, or at least wasn't until we provoked them.  They haven't done a damn thing to us since the USSR fell, while we've continually antagonized them and invaded their allies Serbia and Syria with no provocation towards us whatsoever.  They were falsely blamed for installing a puppet U.S. president in 2016, while it's actually the U.S. who has installed a puppet president in Ukraine.  (I hope you've heard the conversation where Victoria Nuland is literally discussing who the U.S. is going to install as Ukraine's president). 

It's in the strategic interests of the U.S. to (1) be energy-independent, (2) manufacture its own stuff, and (3) guard its own borders.  None of those three things are important to Democrats; in fact, they are opposed to them.

Got news for you. I'm a Democrat and I support the three points you made and I bolded.

The thing is that Republicans are against all 3. They don't want energy independence, they want oil oligarchs to make as much profit as possible,  fuck tge effect is has on America. They don't want domestic manufacturing, they want Chinese slave labor made stuff. They want illegal workers to bust unions and drive down wages.

I mean now we should be building domestic micro chip factories to keep our essential industry and military supplied under all conditions, but NNNOOOOOOO!  corporate profits come before national security or anything else to Republicans...
« Last Edit: June 25, 2022, 01:25:04 PM by Battlemaster »
Fuck the fascist right and the fascist left.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #863 on: June 25, 2022, 03:38:09 PM »
Hi, KindaMeh. You're new here - and this has been discussed before.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean, Mr. Kim?

KindaMeh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 568
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #864 on: June 25, 2022, 03:49:03 PM »
Hi, KindaMeh. You're new here - and this has been discussed before.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean, Mr. Kim?

I eventually took it to mean that I was misreading his stances a little on account of being new and not having heard prior arguments he was in. An opener for describing his opinion and worldview more accurately. TBF, I did kinda have a different understanding of his stance prior to that, and it did allow me to craft a more specific reply. Appreciate the backup and clarification, tho, cuz at first I kinda almost flew off the handle at this a little bit as a perceived slight. It was late and I was low-key sick which didn’t help my mood or reasoning, but yeah.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #865 on: June 25, 2022, 05:12:49 PM »
Hi, KindaMeh. You're new here - and this has been discussed before.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean, Mr. Kim?

I eventually took it to mean that I was misreading his stances a little on account of being new and not having heard prior arguments he was in. An opener for describing his opinion and worldview more accurately. TBF, I did kinda have a different understanding of his stance prior to that, and it did allow me to craft a more specific reply. Appreciate the backup and clarification, tho, cuz at first I kinda almost flew off the handle at this a little bit as a perceived slight. It was late and I was low-key sick which didn’t help my mood or reasoning, but yeah.

Sorry if there was any perceived slight. I just meant that you (KindaMeh) hadn't read previous discussions on this topic, so I tried to summarize some of what was previously discussed from my perspective. KindaMeh just joined in June, while this thread started back in February and is over 800 posts long.

KindaMeh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 568
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #866 on: June 25, 2022, 05:18:13 PM »
Hi, KindaMeh. You're new here - and this has been discussed before.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean, Mr. Kim?

I eventually took it to mean that I was misreading his stances a little on account of being new and not having heard prior arguments he was in. An opener for describing his opinion and worldview more accurately. TBF, I did kinda have a different understanding of his stance prior to that, and it did allow me to craft a more specific reply. Appreciate the backup and clarification, tho, cuz at first I kinda almost flew off the handle at this a little bit as a perceived slight. It was late and I was low-key sick which didn’t help my mood or reasoning, but yeah.

Sorry if there was any perceived slight. I just meant that you (KindaMeh) hadn't read previous discussions on this topic, so I tried to summarize some of what was previously discussed from my perspective. KindaMeh just joined in June, while this thread started back in February and is over 800 posts long.


Yeah, that’s fair. Heck, I’ve been on here less than a week, and I didn’t even come close to reading the whole thread, just enough stuff near the end where I thought I had basic context. No need for you to apologize for my having a brief misinterpretation, was my own fault, and I got over it.

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #867 on: June 25, 2022, 05:58:37 PM »
Whatever antagonist USA has with Russia, Russia has always had a history of conquest and seizure. During the USSR and before it.

Whatever Ukraines Puppet leadership is, it ignores that there are people there that don't want to live under a nation that sees something as basic as their language as 'illegitimate' and has been absolutely willing to commit genocide on the population before.

I hate talks that deny that Ukrainians lack any sort of personal will or personal belief. While the USA is absolutely a player in the politics, its immensly egotistical and self-centered to assume its the only one.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5039
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #868 on: June 25, 2022, 10:57:08 PM »
Greetings!

Countries can often be used just like a Chess Board's Pawn by the real masters. Smaller, weaker countries historically are manipulated by their larger and more powerful patron masters--I mean allies--either subtly, or brazenly. Everything that the vassal nation does or tries to do is seen by the opposing master as a move being made by their current master to gain some kind of advantage.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

I

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #869 on: June 26, 2022, 02:42:19 PM »
The sane reason not to help the Ukraine except for hopes and prayers is because 1) there is no compelling US interest, 2) US interventionism has a really bad history, and 3) Russia has a legitimate strategic interest.

Withdraw from NATO, and let Europe play with Russia, if they care. They're rich enough. It's about time they spent some of that money on defense.
Look at your first and third points. If your third point is true then your first point is false, as opposing the strategic interests of its enemies (i.e., Russia) is in the strategic interests of the USA.

As for point two, isolationism has a terrible history of its own.

"Its enemies, i.e. Russia."  I deny your premise that Russia is an enemy, or at least wasn't until we provoked them.  They haven't done a damn thing to us since the USSR fell, while we've continually antagonized them and invaded their allies Serbia and Syria with no provocation towards us whatsoever.  They were falsely blamed for installing a puppet U.S. president in 2016, while it's actually the U.S. who has installed a puppet president in Ukraine.  (I hope you've heard the conversation where Victoria Nuland is literally discussing who the U.S. is going to install as Ukraine's president). 

It's in the strategic interests of the U.S. to (1) be energy-independent, (2) manufacture its own stuff, and (3) guard its own borders.  None of those three things are important to Democrats; in fact, they are opposed to them.

Got news for you. I'm a Democrat and I support the three points you made and I bolded.

The thing is that Republicans are against all 3. They don't want energy independence, they want oil oligarchs to make as much profit as possible,  fuck tge effect is has on America. They don't want domestic manufacturing, they want Chinese slave labor made stuff. They want illegal workers to bust unions and drive down wages.

I mean now we should be building domestic micro chip factories to keep our essential industry and military supplied under all conditions, but NNNOOOOOOO!  corporate profits come before national security or anything else to Republicans...

Then we agree on the destination, just disagree on the path to it.  You are correct that some Republicans, probably a majority, want that stuff too, but so do all Democrats.  (Bernie Sanders used to be against it, but now he agrees 100% with his "good friends" Biden, Schumer, etc. so the Democrats basically have no one in Congress that agrees with you).  At least nowdays there are Republicans like Trump, Rand Paul and a few others.  And Pat Buchanan was always for this, even when he ran for president in the 1990s.  And even a lot of what I call Neocons want more border security and more domestic oil drilling, so even they are better than Democrats in that regard.

Now, I've named a few Republicans who agree with me.  Can you name ANY Democratic politician who wants to regulate illegal immigration?  (And don't give the name of somebody who wants "border reform," we know that's code for open borders).  Can you name ANY Democratic politician who wants to increase domestic oil production?  Because all I see is Biden making the rounds of foreign nations with his hat in his hand, begging for oil.  As for Chinese trade, give me a break -- NO Democrat wants to even slow down trade with China, they were horrified that Trump called them out on their unfair trade practices.  Woke companies like Disney and woke institutions like Hollywood -- big Democrat donors -- will involve themselves in Florida's state politics, yet censor Blacks out of movie posters, edit gay kisses out of movies, and thank those running concentration camps for ethnic minorities in their film credits just so they can keep making money from the Chinese.

So since you think Democrats are for domestic energy independence , hate illegal immigration and want to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., I will wait patiently while you provide a list of them.  I'll settle for three, since that's all the Republican examples I provided.  And by energy independence I mean fossil fuels, not the usual Democrat "lets all use environmentally-friendly antimatter technology for energy production, never mind that it hasn't been invented yet, we'll cancel fossil fuels and worry about inventing that shit later."