Distraction

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Had lunch with an old friend I rarely see anymore - yesterday - and the subject meandered to the latest flap on abortion, and I was telling him about my observations that it is the UNITED STATES that is the outlier and the most permissive about abortion and abortion laws - and our left wing that salivates and pines for European lifestyles and norms never seem to consider THEIR laws regarding abortion while decrying OURS.

"Distraction" he said, and shrugged. He observed that these items always seem to appear for a while in the news cycle just when really BAD chit begins to emerge about the administration. And it lingers, until the next one. Predictably, he said that's why the news is flush with crap about Depp and Heard. As if it is news.

But what does get me is - the ONE thing I do want to know about is - what happened to Ukraine?

If I want to know anything going on there, I no have to go to BBC or foreign news, because our news channels have lost interest. The closes thing to news about Ukraine is, 40 billion dollars and Rand Paul. And Schumer blathering about Paul even though the bill passed anyway, as though disagreeing at ALL is some milder form of treason.

Why not? Seems to me that the war in Ukraine IS the crucial, central issue that affects so much of the others.
 

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
I'm waiting to see what shoe Putin drops now that Sweden and Finland petitioned NATO.

How insane will it be?
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

But what does get me is - the ONE thing I do want to know about is - what happened to Ukraine?

If I want to know anything going on there, I no have to go to BBC or foreign news, because our news channels have lost interest. The closes thing to news about Ukraine is, 40 billion dollars and Rand Paul. And Schumer blathering about Paul even though the bill passed anyway, as though disagreeing at ALL is some milder form of treason.
Because Ukraine, the cesspit, Kiev, of corruption that it is, is losing, and has turned into a massive quagmire. In addition to the outcry's and push back from those yelling out of our own Nation's massive internal problems with inflation, energy supply issues, other supply issues, farming issues, actual millions of Americans suffering in their own Nation, and the list goes on and on, is why Ukraine has taken a back seat. The majority of Americans do not want us in Ukraine. The majority of Americans do not want anymore wars. The majority of American want government to focus on Americans, not other foreign countries.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
If I may ...


Because Ukraine, the cesspit, Kiev, of corruption that it is, is losing, and has turned into a massive quagmire. In addition to the outcry's and push back from those yelling out of our own Nation's massive internal problems with inflation, energy supply issues, other supply issues, farming issues, actual millions of Americans suffering in their own Nation, and the list goes on and on, is why Ukraine has taken a back seat. The majority of Americans do not want us in Ukraine. The majority of Americans do not want anymore wars. The majority of American want government to focus on Americans, not other foreign countries.
I also think the majority of Americans don't want the crap that hits the fan as a CONSEQUENCE of the war, but aren't putting it together.

Ukraine - and Russia - don't just supply the world with food or oil or natural gas - they're crucial to the fertilizer business. This war is going to cost ALL of us, and for quite a while.

And I think, in the long run, Ukraine will achieve AT LEAST a draw. Historically, long costly wars can be won by the weaker nation IF the stronger nation just doesn't think fighting it is worth the blood and treasure. Even our own revolution looked extremely bleak up until the last couple years and from what I understand, the English people - and the King - were just tired of fighting it. We weren't "winning" - we were just outlasting the much more powerful England.

Russia has lost a LOT - and it's been mentioned, yeah, they have reserves and more missiles - but do they want to squander so much of it in a war that at this point, isn't going to gain them all that much? Eventually, as a nation, they're going to have to find a way to declare victory and back out, because it's reached a point of diminishing returns.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I also think the majority of Americans don't want the crap that hits the fan as a CONSEQUENCE of the war, but aren't putting it together.

I didn't use the word crap - it was inserted. That surprises me - I thought it was just XXXX it out.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Ukraine - and Russia - don't just supply the world with food or oil or natural gas - they're crucial to the fertilizer business. This war is going to cost ALL of us, and for quite a while.

I saw something the other day about Lithium as well
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

I also think the majority of Americans don't want the crap that hits the fan as a CONSEQUENCE of the war, but aren't putting it together.

Ukraine - and Russia - don't just supply the world with food or oil or natural gas - they're crucial to the fertilizer business. This war is going to cost ALL of us, and for quite a while.

And I think, in the long run, Ukraine will achieve AT LEAST a draw. Historically, long costly wars can be won by the weaker nation IF the stronger nation just doesn't think fighting it is worth the blood and treasure. Even our own revolution looked extremely bleak up until the last couple years and from what I understand, the English people - and the King - were just tired of fighting it. We weren't "winning" - we were just outlasting the much more powerful England.

Russia has lost a LOT - and it's been mentioned, yeah, they have reserves and more missiles - but do they want to squander so much of it in a war that at this point, isn't going to gain them all that much? Eventually, as a nation, they're going to have to find a way to declare victory and back out, because it's reached a point of diminishing returns.
And just think. If the US, and NATO expansionists, hadn't gotten involved in the beginning, 2014, or ever, and left these two Nation's to work things out for themselves, and didn't interfere in Russia's energy business dealings with their customers, or wanted their resources for their personal gain, then there most likely would have been no war.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
If I may ...


And just think. If the US, and NATO expansionists, hadn't gotten involved in the beginning, 2014, or ever, and left these two Nation's to work things out for themselves, and didn't interfere in Russia's energy business dealings with their customers, or wanted their resources for their personal gain, then there most likely would have been no war.

I guess I am not seeing it the way you are - leaving for them to sort it out is precisely how we have Russia taking Crimea - taking the Donbas - taking what they've taken so far and left unchecked - taking Odessa, running over Moldova, screwing the West with their oil and gas.

To me, expanding NATO was - to protect these nations from a bully. And Russia is proving it by threatening nuclear war - unless those nations choose not to ask for help from NATO.

If this were a neighborhood in the Bronx, we'd call that racketeering - and blackmail.

Russia has not ever changed - even at the end of WW2, plenty of those in charge were of the opinion we should kick Russia's ass back to Moscow, or they'd still hold sway over Eastern Europe. And they weren't wrong.

I have little doubt after Russia intervening in Georgia and Ukraine that they wouldn't prefer to get the USSR back together. Putin has himself said so.
 
Top