Should the US shed blood for Ukraine

Should the USA along with NATO defend Ukraine with troops.

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 40.4%

  • No

    Votes: 59 59.6%
  • Total voters
    99
D

djumbir

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i've only had the chance to talk to a few Japanese people who were actually alive at the time, and they weren't eager to discuss it, as you might imagine.
i have given it thought over the years, and while i think it was a horrible event, i do think it saved lives. the Japanese were given terms of surrender, and made vague statements about possible negotiations. dropping the bombs killed about 300 thousand people, most of them instantaneously, the rest over a year or two...a feet on the ground invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives...Japan had close to two million men stationed in and near Japan, the deaths would have been at least 3 to 4 million, perhaps more...can you be morally superior knowing that an invasion would have cost at least one thousand times as many deaths?
Click to expand...
Well obviously. But as you mentioned in another post, nothing is black and white. You don't leave any space for a possibility of the same outcome achieved by different strategy. Air strikes had already destroyed enough. Paired with Soviets (who played more than important role, which many fail to mention), don't you think Japan would have capitulated either way? Nukes did help finish it, but they weren't necessarily decisive. They would've given up negotiations very soon. Unconditional surrender was just around the corner, imo
 
D

djumbir

Well-Known Member
Wattzzup said:
So because our army is stationed around the world in case of an attack we’re using offensive force? That’s a silly argument. Sounds kinda defensive if you ask me.
Click to expand...
"in case of attack", love it. You should get couple of those on the moon, you never know :D. However, many of the "dots" on this map came to be after invasions, so it at least partially helps the argument.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
djumbir said:
Well obviously. But as you mentioned in another post, nothing is black and white. You don't leave any space for a possibility of the same outcome achieved by different strategy. Air strikes had already destroyed enough. Paired with Soviets (who played more than important role, which many fail to mention), don't you think Japan would have capitulated either way? Nukes did help finish it, but they weren't necessarily decisive. They would've given up negotiations very soon. Unconditional surrender was just around the corner, imo
Click to expand...
we're looking at this with the perspective that information they didn't have at the time gives us...we know things they didn't know, and we don't have to sweat the consequences of our decisions...
i don't know everything they knew and didn't know at the time, and that is what they based their decisions on...so i can only guess, and my guess is they thought it was worth the consequences at the time...it wasn't a punishment for daring to go to war with America, it was a way to end the war without risking more allied lives...i think i would have made the same decision, especially after they still refused to surrender after the first bomb
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
djumbir said:
"in case of attack", love it. You should get couple of those on the moon, you never know :D. However, many of the "dots" on this map came to be after invasions, so it at least partially helps the argument.
Click to expand...
we have treaties with other governments, and with NATO, they've asked us to come, and build those bases...they've asked us to have a presence in most of those places to deter enemies from attacking, and we've asked to build some of them to aid in rapid deployment if the need arises. If the legitimate government of a country asks us to gtfo, then we will.
think putin will leave Ukraine if they ask him to?
 
D

djumbir

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
If the legitimate government of a country asks us to gtfo, then we will
Click to expand...
Bashar never called you in the first place, neither did Milosevic, Gaddafi, Saddam... All, at the time, members of the legitimate governments of their countries. Oh wait, you decide who is legitimate as you don't give a fuck about UN or international law. And no, Putin wouldn't leave, as Russia is doing the same thing US is doing - exercising power.
 
jimihendrix1

jimihendrix1

Well-Known Member
Not only is this war going to be a total disaster for the Ukranian people, its going to be a disaster for the entire world.

Putin is a fucking nut job, and puts no value on human life. Hes already threatened the NATO allies, and the USA with cyber war because of our sanctioning him, and the sanctions are only beginning. I say starve the motherfucker out.

Also Putins cyber war against Ukraine could morph out into NATO countries like say Poland, and if Poland physically retaliates, this will trigger all NATO countries, including the USA to become physically involved.

"If you unleash not one, but five, or 10, or 50, or 1,000 Malware attacks at Ukraine, the chances of that staying within the Ukrainian geographic border is quite small. ... It could spread to America, could spread to the U.K., but the more likely effect will be spreading to adjacent geographic territory ... [such as] Poland."
  • "It suddenly gets into a gray area about, what would the Polish people's reaction be? What would NATO's reaction be? What would America's reaction be? Nobody's physically shot at [American troops], but they could come in harm's way."

United States says if a Putin cyberattack harms a NATO member, we would "err on the side of a stronger response" from the U.S.

Putin's been pretty clear that one of the first tools he would use to bring economic harm to NATO and America is cyber, war.


  • Play over that whole scenario, just at a larger level, and all the hypothetical conversations about what will constitute an act of war ... suddenly get very real."
  • Dmitri Alperovitch, a Russian-born U.S. computer security expert, said Putin could respond to the most severe Western sanctions by giving ransomware groups an "implicit carte blanche" to declare "open season," while Russian government forces could be ordered to target critical infrastructure.
What happens when Putin knocks out the USA electrical grid???

The "denial-of-service" attacks reported in Ukraine during the past two weeks were significant, but nowhere near the scale of the massive Russian cyberattacks U.S. officials fear could paralyze communications and shut down critical infrastructure during an invasion.

  • Fears of cyberwarfare "spillover" are entirely reasonable, since many forms of malware are designed to multiply and overwhelm targets and continue wreaking havoc.
  • They rarely have "off" buttons by design — and they don't recognize international boundaries.
Putin's actions during the next few days could force underprepared NATO allies to answer these questions in real time.

The top senator overseeing U.S. intelligence agencies tells Axios he's deeply concerned cyberattacks launched by Russian President Vladimir Putin could morph into a broader war that draws in NATO nations — including the United States.

Why it matters: President Biden has ruled out American boots on the ground in Ukraine. But Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.), said in an interview Wednesday that Putin's actions during the next few days risk triggering NATO's Article 5 collective defense principle.

  • In a 2021 communique, NATO affirmed the alliance would weigh whether to trigger its Article 5 mutual defense pact over a cyberattack "on a case-by-case basis."
  • It said the response "need not be restricted to the cyber domain."

Details: Warner foresees two ways a digital war could draw in NATO countries, including the United States:

  1. Putin deploys cyber weapons inside Ukraine that take on a life of their own and spread to NATO member states. This has happened before — most notably in 2017, when Russia's NotPetya malware was unleashed in Ukraine and ended up causing billions of dollars in damage to companies worldwide.
  2. Putin retaliates against the West's toughest sanctions by ordering direct cyberattacks targeting infrastructure inside the U.S. and other NATO allies. The U.S. government issued an alert this week urging businesses and agencies to protect their "most critical digital assets," citing "the potential for the Russian government to consider escalating its destabilizing actions" beyond Ukraine.
What they're saying: "If you're suddenly having 190,000 troops attack Ukraine, chances are, if he's coming in that hard kinetic, that the cyberattack will not be a single piece of malware," Warner told Axios.

  • He spoke shortly after news broke of cyberattacks bringing down Ukrainian government websites.
  • "Nation states have been holding on to these malware tools. They've been storing them up; we have, too, literally for years on end," he said.

And tRump says what Puton is doing is genius!!!

Cucker Tarlson agrees with this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
shroomhaze

shroomhaze

Well-Known Member
I saw this post just want to leave this here im not from NA and I fucking hate that US government plays the 'good guy' to institutionalize everyplace and turn a fat check in the name of good. Fuck that shit your government is as evil as any other government, so americans stop living in your bubble and relies nobody wants the so called "help" us gives to countries because thats a lie some dumbasses seem to believe. US government does not help others let alone any fucking person they are as fucking evil as they come, people are fucking getting ruined in this part of the world rights going away safety going away no fucking help from a totalitarianism regime capitalist control freak government is gonna help anything but the government and people who profit off of the conflicts
 
Jimdamick

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
The solution to get people to stop using offensive force, can't be to build a system which uses offensive force as its primary means and think that's the solution.

That is literally impossible.


I await your superior argument.

View attachment 5091114
Click to expand...
Define the difference between offensive & defensive weapons.
Personally, I don't see any difference and most wars are started using the lie it's a defensive action & a present-day example is Ukraine
 
Last edited:
Jamie0715

Jamie0715

Well-Known Member
Friendly_Grower said:
The Idiot Trump think it's "Genius."
Putin threatens using Nukes on the NATO if they interfere.

Just think what this would be like if Trump was still President. Could he kiss Putin's ass enough?
Trump thinks he could get Putin to invade Mexico and solve the boarder issues of his mind.
Click to expand...
remember syria? i dont think this at all would of happened if trump was still in office. i feel he would have met them at the borders where they have beefin up since december( you know right around the time biden became official)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top