Forums

Another inevitability. The move to "re-shore" some critical manufacturing capabilities is the only good news these days.  The sooner the better. Trading with China was the biggest mistake of the post-WWII era. We could have pulled the entirety of Latin America into the modern world, instead we funded the buildup of our biggest geopolitical adversary, and got an immigration crisis as a bonus. 

No worries, internetting is fraught with communication errors. Let's try anyways. "War with Russia" is a bit vague. We can have an entire war with Russia within the borders of Ukraine. That's very different than marching on Moscow, with very different responses from Russia. We try to occupy Russia, yeah, nukes go from "probably not" to "possibly."  Definitely not circling the drain, or declining to ruin. We've been through 3 turnings already. We emerge stronger each time. I think you misunderstand the theory.  I agree with this, however I believe that complete economic isolation will absolutely provoke a Russian response we can't ignore, and thus, escalate. The oil embargo on Japan is a good corollary.  We agree on a lot, so I probably had you confused with some other argument on this board. I don't think it's time for American troops to kill Russians. But I absolutely do support Americans killing Russians in Ukraine if it looks like Russia is moving to occupy the entire country. A march on Kiev would be the red line. 

You have to define "start a war." I'm happy to keep dumping weapons, intel, and training on the Ukrainians to keep up the fight. And if The Russians start pushing towards Kiev, then I would be fine if western forces began supporting with airstrikes and other direct support within the borders of Ukraine. A lot of this simply boils down to my belief that what is happening is morally wrong, sovereignty matters, and letting weaker nations fall because of isolationist fears never ends well.   What evidence do you have that they won't? Doesn't matter. You don't get to "take" sovereign countries. Controlling Ukraine gives Russia a massive strategic advantage if they do invade other countries. So now we have two reasons to stop them. I haven't argued for preemptive war. But I agree with some conservatives that continued support of Ukraine, even without direct involvement, will eventually "provoke" Russia into more belligerent action that draws us into a fight. So be it. That still won't be us "starting it," regardless of how much standard political maneuvering existed before the invasion.  Any doubt was extinguished when Russia failed to take Ukraine in 2022. Are we seriously thinking otherwise? I have no interest in occupying Russia, so if you are referring to a land invasion then sure, that would be long, painful, and ugly. But beat them in a war to defend the currently established borders? Please.  We beat the shit out of Iraq, and then the politicians fucked it all up. And yeah, we shouldn't have gone in the first place. But there's not a great comparison. Now, if you are arguing that we shouldn't have kicked Iraq's ass in the early 90's and saved Kuwait... yeah I just can't get on board with "let it all burn." We tried that with Germany and it wasn't great. Limited goals are the key to military success.  Defending a sovereign nation is not escalating. End.  Nukes have been hanging over the world for almost a century but it keeps spinning. It's a pointless paradox: If Russia is willing to use nukes because their attempt to steal another country is failing, then have to accept that they can take whatever countries they want because we avoid nuclear war at all costs.  Why does the calculus change for Latvia? Are you really telling me you're more comfortable with nuclear war because Latvia is in NATO? Who the fuck is Latvia?

Nothing Uncle Bosey's nephew can't handle.