5 ms·

I really hope to see more help in arms deliveries and more advanced weapon systems. More drones and more intelligent systems. I really think the war has just st

I really hope to see more help in arms deliveries and more advanced weapon systems. More drones and more intelligent systems. I really think the war has just started and these people need all the help they can get. Also trucks with generators would be nice. Just like the ones that film lighting companies have. They are so handy.

lionkor 4y ago
You hope to see more war and death?
- eCa 4y ago
  Would you have preferred if WW2 ended with it’s 1942 borders?
  - mjfl 4y ago
    easy to say when you have no skin in the game
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    I'd let Europe solve it's own problems and not intentionally provoke Japan and then leave myself open to attack at Pearl Harbor despite intercepting messages that it would be attacked like Roosevelt did.
    - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
      How would you achieve world dominance, let’s call it Pax Americana, without war?
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        By not spending a generation of lives and treasure on war, and preventing the military industrial complex from growing so large that it runs the show. A anti interventionist America wouldn't have wasted resources on Vietnam or the Middle East either. Instead of war, invest in infrastructure have the world's cheapest energy and later fastest internet as well as the lowest taxes then dominate the nations who spend those funds on bombs and bullets instead.
        tut-urut-utut 4y ago
        Noble alternative history, but I’m not aware of a single empire in human history that achieved its global dominance peacefully. Ability to start wars worldwide and profit from them was always the only path.
        willcipriano 4y ago
        Dominance is really only good for the people who run the country. The people are better served by excellence. Contrast the dominant US to the comparatively pathetic Nordic nations in terms of standard of living. Being #1 has been ruinously expensive for the people.
        tut-urut-utut 4y ago
        You are completely right here. But the problem is that globalist elite that runs (rules?) USA has only own interests in mind, and they are achieved by using USA as a tool to achieve their own global dominance. They don’t care about USA or its citizens. That’s why the best thing that can happen to this planet is a victory of a nationalist isolationist option on the next election.
  - lionkor 4y ago
    No, but would I have supported the rest of the war and killing everyone? Absolutely not. I would rather borders be weird than millions of people dying (apparently we are ignoring the rest of the details of the conflict?). Not sure what your point is.
- archontes 4y ago
  I want to supply Ukraine every material assistance available until the 2014 borders are restored, and the Kremlin along with everyone inside it are as flat as a pancake by way of a long range armament.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    I’m sure they are accepting recruits. Why not volunteer and encourage your closest family members and friends to join you? Or would you rather sit back in the comforts of your home far away from any affects and lob other people’s money their way, letting the Ukrainian and Russian people kill each other?
    - archontes 4y ago
      I've thought about it, and donated my own money to Ukraine. My fiancee has as well. We have close friends who are Ukrainian. There are many things that are important; equal rights for all Americans, ending slavery in America, increasing healthcare access, reducing rent-seeking in all its forms, equal rights outside of America. The implication is that I'm a hypocrite if I don't volunteer to be a foot soldier in any one of a hundred important things, but doing so is mutually exclusive. And that's only for the selfless items. What about being a parent? Should one not advocate for Ukraine if they're not willing to orphan their child, or take them with them to a war zone? Russia is an illiberal coalition of mafias engaging in a never-ending power grab. The limit behavior of such a system is that technological innovation will never be allowed to thrive as it will always fall to violent entrepreneurship, and that the most successful violent entrepreneur will always ensure that no other elements gain enough wealth and power to threaten the power of the current leader. What Russia is follows from what Russia's culture does, and its modus operandi results in destitution and war. I don't like that, and feel that for everyone's good, Russia's modus operandi should not expand. Now. Russia has a problem. It has 1.8 times the area of the US and less than half the population. They're surrounded by flat, dry areas where it sucks to live, but you can roll a Panzer division right through. The upshot is that they've been invaded 50-something times in their history because they can't defend it. Because Russia is intrinsically handicapped when it comes to technological innovation and population, they don't have a road network, they have a rail network, which means that its attempts at defending its territory will be in the form of fixed defenses, and those fixed defenses have to be placed at bottlenecks on the far side of the flat areas (far side relative to their wheat belt). There are nine of these bottlenecks: The Polish Gap on the far side of Belarus, The Baltic Sea through Lithuania and Latvia, the Bessarabian Gap on the far side of Ukraine/Romania, the Black Sea through Crimea, the east and west sides of the Caucasus mountains in Georgia, the Central Asian Corridor through Uzbekistan, the Tien Shan-Atlay Shan Gap, and the White Sea. The Soviet Union controlled all nine, and after they broke up, Russia went to controlling only one. Putin has been systematically attempting to control the remaining eight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kazakh_unrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kazakh_unrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru... Ukraine is not in one of these gateways, it's on the way to two. Putin won't stop even after he controls all of Ukraine. To make things even more dangerous, not only has their technology not kept up, but their logistics are also terrible, and we learned quickly from their first convoy into Ukraine that they can no longer effectively fight a war against a modern opponent, which means that when they trigger NATO article 5, they'll be soundly beaten, which for obvious reasons they will regard as an existential threat, and nuclear weapons will not just be their last resort, they will be their only resort. So to avoid this, I support Ukraine receiving any and all material support that anyone in the world wants to give them. A resounding defeat in Ukraine stands a chance of dealing such a political blow to Putin as to unseat him from power, and hopefully avoid such an eventuality. So. Russia culture bad. Nukes bad. Help Ukraine. Addendum. The username of the person to whom I am replying is 'cudgy', and they appear to be a Russian apologist.

lionkor 4y ago

You hope to see more war and death?

eCa 4y ago
Would you have preferred if WW2 ended with it’s 1942 borders?
- mjfl 4y ago
  easy to say when you have no skin in the game
- willcipriano 4y ago
  I'd let Europe solve it's own problems and not intentionally provoke Japan and then leave myself open to attack at Pearl Harbor despite intercepting messages that it would be attacked like Roosevelt did.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    How would you achieve world dominance, let’s call it Pax Americana, without war?
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      By not spending a generation of lives and treasure on war, and preventing the military industrial complex from growing so large that it runs the show. A anti interventionist America wouldn't have wasted resources on Vietnam or the Middle East either. Instead of war, invest in infrastructure have the world's cheapest energy and later fastest internet as well as the lowest taxes then dominate the nations who spend those funds on bombs and bullets instead.
      - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
        Noble alternative history, but I’m not aware of a single empire in human history that achieved its global dominance peacefully. Ability to start wars worldwide and profit from them was always the only path.
        willcipriano 4y ago
        Dominance is really only good for the people who run the country. The people are better served by excellence. Contrast the dominant US to the comparatively pathetic Nordic nations in terms of standard of living. Being #1 has been ruinously expensive for the people.
        tut-urut-utut 4y ago
        You are completely right here. But the problem is that globalist elite that runs (rules?) USA has only own interests in mind, and they are achieved by using USA as a tool to achieve their own global dominance. They don’t care about USA or its citizens. That’s why the best thing that can happen to this planet is a victory of a nationalist isolationist option on the next election.
- lionkor 4y ago
  No, but would I have supported the rest of the war and killing everyone? Absolutely not. I would rather borders be weird than millions of people dying (apparently we are ignoring the rest of the details of the conflict?). Not sure what your point is.
archontes 4y ago
I want to supply Ukraine every material assistance available until the 2014 borders are restored, and the Kremlin along with everyone inside it are as flat as a pancake by way of a long range armament.
- cudgy 4y ago
  I’m sure they are accepting recruits. Why not volunteer and encourage your closest family members and friends to join you? Or would you rather sit back in the comforts of your home far away from any affects and lob other people’s money their way, letting the Ukrainian and Russian people kill each other?
  - archontes 4y ago
    I've thought about it, and donated my own money to Ukraine. My fiancee has as well. We have close friends who are Ukrainian. There are many things that are important; equal rights for all Americans, ending slavery in America, increasing healthcare access, reducing rent-seeking in all its forms, equal rights outside of America. The implication is that I'm a hypocrite if I don't volunteer to be a foot soldier in any one of a hundred important things, but doing so is mutually exclusive. And that's only for the selfless items. What about being a parent? Should one not advocate for Ukraine if they're not willing to orphan their child, or take them with them to a war zone? Russia is an illiberal coalition of mafias engaging in a never-ending power grab. The limit behavior of such a system is that technological innovation will never be allowed to thrive as it will always fall to violent entrepreneurship, and that the most successful violent entrepreneur will always ensure that no other elements gain enough wealth and power to threaten the power of the current leader. What Russia is follows from what Russia's culture does, and its modus operandi results in destitution and war. I don't like that, and feel that for everyone's good, Russia's modus operandi should not expand. Now. Russia has a problem. It has 1.8 times the area of the US and less than half the population. They're surrounded by flat, dry areas where it sucks to live, but you can roll a Panzer division right through. The upshot is that they've been invaded 50-something times in their history because they can't defend it. Because Russia is intrinsically handicapped when it comes to technological innovation and population, they don't have a road network, they have a rail network, which means that its attempts at defending its territory will be in the form of fixed defenses, and those fixed defenses have to be placed at bottlenecks on the far side of the flat areas (far side relative to their wheat belt). There are nine of these bottlenecks: The Polish Gap on the far side of Belarus, The Baltic Sea through Lithuania and Latvia, the Bessarabian Gap on the far side of Ukraine/Romania, the Black Sea through Crimea, the east and west sides of the Caucasus mountains in Georgia, the Central Asian Corridor through Uzbekistan, the Tien Shan-Atlay Shan Gap, and the White Sea. The Soviet Union controlled all nine, and after they broke up, Russia went to controlling only one. Putin has been systematically attempting to control the remaining eight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kazakh_unrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kazakh_unrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru... Ukraine is not in one of these gateways, it's on the way to two. Putin won't stop even after he controls all of Ukraine. To make things even more dangerous, not only has their technology not kept up, but their logistics are also terrible, and we learned quickly from their first convoy into Ukraine that they can no longer effectively fight a war against a modern opponent, which means that when they trigger NATO article 5, they'll be soundly beaten, which for obvious reasons they will regard as an existential threat, and nuclear weapons will not just be their last resort, they will be their only resort. So to avoid this, I support Ukraine receiving any and all material support that anyone in the world wants to give them. A resounding defeat in Ukraine stands a chance of dealing such a political blow to Putin as to unseat him from power, and hopefully avoid such an eventuality. So. Russia culture bad. Nukes bad. Help Ukraine. Addendum. The username of the person to whom I am replying is 'cudgy', and they appear to be a Russian apologist.