[johnforbes]

Something like 123 billion into the morass of Ukraine. so two questions:

1) Isn't that much spending inflationary?

2) Isn't the general foreign policy going to drive Russia into the arms of China?

[Clownkicker]

So, johnny, do you have any thoughts on the topic? Or do you always think in such childish and simplistic cartoons?

This thread is just another of your usual intellectual goose eggs, I guess.

[brandon]

I remember when 5 billion was too much to defend our own border.

[sillydaddy]

Did I understand Biden correctly?..
He didn't say it outright, but does he expect Americans to die for Ukraine??

[Clownkicker]

silly, you don't seem to understand the obvious--we get to fight Russia and not lose a single soldier. That's a good thing for the U.S.. You can thank Democrats for that.

This is our dream scenario for a war with Russia. What is wrong with you? Putin is being crippled.

Either we will let Ukraine fight them for us or we will be forced to fight them ourselves later on. That's the sort of thing Trump Republicans would prefer. They clearly hate our troops because they would kiss Putin's ass now in the face of his aggression and then be forced to send our troops to die later instead of just sending weapons to Ukrainians willing to stand up to Russia now. If in power, Republican would simply tell us how great Putin is and grovel to him as Putin bowls across the old Soviet Union taking whatever he wants.

silly, this is the cheapest war we will ever fight if things stay the way they are now. And all we have to do is send military aid.

[brandon]

Yeah Silly, can't you see it's a super discounted war by proxy that allows the United States and this administration and their NATO allies to send tens of thousands of other people (non-preferred problem people) to their deaths for the spread of Western "culture", and it's blue light special cheap!!!!

[Clownkicker]

Stop being dishonest, brandon. They were going to die whether we support them or not, because they would have fought Russia regardless. Look to Bucha and other towns to see what Ukraine would have experienced across the country if not confronted.

We might as well help Ukraine fight before Russia simply rides roughshod over a few more countries and then we would be forced to send troops because of our commitments to allies. And Russia would have continued to invade countries if there had been no NATO response this time to this invasion. Every Russia expert thinks so. Crimea was just the test case. We did nothing and so Putin did it again.

Stop pretending that the U.S. somehow orchestrated Russia's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine to have a 'discounted' war. Or Chechnya, or anywhere else for that matter. Stop pretending that Ukrainians dying for their country is our fault. All we can do is help them without whining about how much it is costing you personally.

You chicken hawks are all the same. You posture as tough guys and then blame those in power for not running away from a worthy cause when things get unavoidably messy.

Incidentally, if you want to see what "non-preferred problem people" sent to their deaths really looks like, just look at Russia emptying their prisons and sending them to die without training or adequate weapons. They are just slaughtered.

Yeah, brandon, your attempt at satire is friggin hilarious. Grow up already.

[johnforbes]

No, a "chicken hawk" in this context is one who argues for war in public, but when faced in his youth with an actual war is chicken.

Many politicians, both Dems and Repubs, fall into that category over Ukraine, including Schumer and Graham and Romney and many others who could easily have served in Vietnam had their machismo allowed it.

For example, Clowntroller argues in favor of sending 123 billion to Ukraine, but leaving America's border wide open, but the most dangerous thing Clown has ever down in his own life is attempt to close his Sansabelt golf slacks over his burgeoning belly.