Support of hopeless country that could lead to nuclear war

[Supermom]

Have you ever thought of why we support Ukraine? Why do the US spend billions of dollars every year on this country? Maybe you would want to raise an objection saying that Ukraine is an important partner for both us and all Western states. However, it doesn’t seem true to me. The American Conservative has just published an analytic paper (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-does-american-folly-march-on-in-ukraine) where it discusses in detail why such actions don’t pay off for the US at all.

The paper says that all Western politicians keep insisting that the US could lose a lot if they stop providing military support for Ukraine. The problem is that these are lies and illusions which have no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Ukraine has no strategic value for the United States.

We did the same thing with Vietnam in 1965, although we had no need for war. The only difference is that in Vietnam we faced a much weaker state but now are at risk of the direct confrontation against a nuclear armed state. I think such actions can be necessary in only one case and that is if it directly concerns the US national interests. Since when has a small, hopeless Ukraine whom we don’t benefit from at all become so near and dear? Clearly, Ukrainian support is not worth a global catastrophe for the American nation.

But what do you think: is Ukraine which now has nothing of substance to offer worth the risk of waging a war against Russia? This will be a full-scale disaster for the whole world, not just a bunch of people. And we could definitely avoid this scenario. All it takes is just for us to stop sending weapons to Zelensky.

 

[mark francis]

Have you ever thought of why we support Ukraine? Why do the US spend billions of dollars every year on this country? Maybe you would want to raise an objection saying that Ukraine is an important partner for both us and all Western states. However, it doesn’t seem true to me. The American Conservative has just published an analytic paper (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-does-american-folly-march-on-in-ukraine) where it discusses in detail why such actions don’t pay off for the US at all.

The paper says that all Western politicians keep insisting that the US could lose a lot if they stop providing military support for Ukraine. The problem is that these are lies and illusions which have no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Ukraine has no strategic value for the United States.

We did the same thing with Vietnam in 1965, although we had no need for war. The only difference is that in Vietnam we faced a much weaker state but now are at risk of the direct confrontation against a nuclear armed state. I think such actions can be necessary in only one case and that is if it directly concerns the US national interests. Since when has a small, hopeless Ukraine whom we don’t benefit from at all become so near and dear? Clearly, Ukrainian support is not worth a global catastrophe for the American nation.

But what do you think: is Ukraine which now has nothing of substance to offer worth the risk of waging a war against Russia? This will be a full-scale disaster for the whole world, not just a bunch of people. And we could definitely avoid this scenario. All it takes is just for us to stop sending weapons to Zelensky.

View attachment 14535

Tyrannical attacks on free people anywhere threaten the freedoms of everyone everywhere.

 

[Phoenix68]

Have you ever thought of why we support Ukraine? Why do the US spend billions of dollars every year on this country? Maybe you would want to raise an objection saying that Ukraine is an important partner for both us and all Western states. However, it doesn’t seem true to me. The American Conservative has just published an analytic paper (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-does-american-folly-march-on-in-ukraine) where it discusses in detail why such actions don’t pay off for the US at all.

.

.
"The American Conservative!!!!"
.​

"The American Conservative was founded by Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell, and Taki Theodoracopulos in 2002 in opposition to the Iraq War."

.​

 

[Boris Norris]

Have you ever thought of why we support Ukraine? Why do the US spend billions of dollars every year on this country? Maybe you would want to raise an objection saying that Ukraine is an important partner for both us and all Western states. However, it doesn’t seem true to me. The American Conservative has just published an analytic paper (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-does-american-folly-march-on-in-ukraine) where it discusses in detail why such actions don’t pay off for the US at all.

The paper says that all Western politicians keep insisting that the US could lose a lot if they stop providing military support for Ukraine. The problem is that these are lies and illusions which have no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Ukraine has no strategic value for the United States.

We did the same thing with Vietnam in 1965, although we had no need for war. The only difference is that in Vietnam we faced a much weaker state but now are at risk of the direct confrontation against a nuclear armed state. I think such actions can be necessary in only one case and that is if it directly concerns the US national interests. Since when has a small, hopeless Ukraine whom we don’t benefit from at all become so near and dear? Clearly, Ukrainian support is not worth a global catastrophe for the American nation.

But what do you think: is Ukraine which now has nothing of substance to offer worth the risk of waging a war against Russia? This will be a full-scale disaster for the whole world, not just a bunch of people. And we could definitely avoid this scenario. All it takes is just for us to stop sending weapons to Zelensky.

View attachment 14535

Ok. What is your opinion on how to stop the march of communism into western Europe?

 

[MusicLover]

Have you ever thought of why we support Ukraine? Why do the US spend billions of dollars every year on this country? Maybe you would want to raise an objection saying that Ukraine is an important partner for both us and all Western states. However, it doesn’t seem true to me. The American Conservative has just published an analytic paper (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-does-american-folly-march-on-in-ukraine) where it discusses in detail why such actions don’t pay off for the US at all.

The paper says that all Western politicians keep insisting that the US could lose a lot if they stop providing military support for Ukraine. The problem is that these are lies and illusions which have no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Ukraine has no strategic value for the United States.

We did the same thing with Vietnam in 1965, although we had no need for war. The only difference is that in Vietnam we faced a much weaker state but now are at risk of the direct confrontation against a nuclear armed state. I think such actions can be necessary in only one case and that is if it directly concerns the US national interests. Since when has a small, hopeless Ukraine whom we don’t benefit from at all become so near and dear? Clearly, Ukrainian support is not worth a global catastrophe for the American nation.

But what do you think: is Ukraine which now has nothing of substance to offer worth the risk of waging a war against Russia? This will be a full-scale disaster for the whole world, not just a bunch of people. And we could definitely avoid this scenario. All it takes is just for us to stop sending weapons to Zelensky.

View attachment 14535

You might want to try an honest publication that has a reputation for not lying.

Whatever your far right propaganda rag published is a lie.

It's really stupid to post something from a far right propaganda rag trying to pass it off as a legitimate source of information.

But then a person who actually believes the garbage from that rag is stupid.

Why did you like to advertise that you are stupid?

 

[pjmret]

Have you ever thought of why we support Ukraine? Why do the US spend billions of dollars every year on this country? Maybe you would want to raise an objection saying that Ukraine is an important partner for both us and all Western states. However, it doesn’t seem true to me. The American Conservative has just published an analytic paper (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-does-american-folly-march-on-in-ukraine) where it discusses in detail why such actions don’t pay off for the US at all.

The paper says that all Western politicians keep insisting that the US could lose a lot if they stop providing military support for Ukraine. The problem is that these are lies and illusions which have no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Ukraine has no strategic value for the United States.

We did the same thing with Vietnam in 1965, although we had no need for war. The only difference is that in Vietnam we faced a much weaker state but now are at risk of the direct confrontation against a nuclear armed state. I think such actions can be necessary in only one case and that is if it directly concerns the US national interests. Since when has a small, hopeless Ukraine whom we don’t benefit from at all become so near and dear? Clearly, Ukrainian support is not worth a global catastrophe for the American nation.

But what do you think: is Ukraine which now has nothing of substance to offer worth the risk of waging a war against Russia? This will be a full-scale disaster for the whole world, not just a bunch of people. And we could definitely avoid this scenario. All it takes is just for us to stop sending weapons to Zelensky.

View attachment 14535

supporting ukraine significantly weakens putin and russia and will help prevent future problems for democracy.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Tyrannical attacks on free people anywhere threaten the freedoms of everyone everywhere.

You are the epitome of an unfree person, oppressed by your medieval fundie beliefs, which have caused you to abandon reason for nonsensical religious dogmatism.

 

[mark francis]

You are the epitome of an unfree person, oppressed by your medieval fundie beliefs, which have caused you to abandon reason for nonsensical religious dogmatism.

Atheists may see me as in bondage but at least I am free from fear of death, which shall overtake all.

 

[pjmret]

Atheists may see me as in bondage but at least I am free from fear of death, which shall overtake all.

the atheists I know dont fear death either. they realize it happens to everyone.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Atheists may see me as in bondage but at least I am free from fear of death, which shall overtake all.

Yeah, you ain't skeert.
Your mind is oppressed, you are a prisoner of your own device. You can check out., but you can never leave.
Until you are dead, of course.

 

[mark francis]

the atheists I know dont fear death either. they realize it happens to everyone.

Hebrews 2:14-16
King James Version

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.​

 

[pjmret]

Hebrews 2:14-16​

King James Version​

​

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;​

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.​

thanks for the sermon, rev. lol.
nothing to do with my post. duh

 

[mark francis]

Yeah, you ain't skeert.
Your mind is oppressed, you are a prisoner of your own device. You can check out., but you can never leave.
Until you are dead, of course.

Enslavement to sin is cruel bondage.

2 Peter 2:18-20
King James Version
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.​

 

[pjmret]

Enslavement to sin is cruel bondage.

2 Peter 2:18-20​

King James Version​

18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.​

19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.​

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.​

you are enslaved to lying, that is cruel bondage

 

[Boris Norris]

Enslavement to sin is cruel bondage.

2 Peter 2:18-20​

King James Version​

18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.​

19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.​

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.​

That's the way son. Slip a Bible quote in when you've got nothing left. It always wins the debate.