Political Debate Thread

[jlv]

It sounds like you're saying you oppose helping Ukraine just because the Democrats support it. If you don't have a moral code any better than that I think you'd be better off just rooting for a football team or something. I don't think I've ever seen a more stark case of good vs evil than this war. If you doubt how depraved the Russians are, check out their state run media. Julia Davis translates it on Twitter. It's totally insane.

Also, I really want to see the F-16s and A-10s go! Is that really too much to ask?

[Pumaxcs]

In other news cold weather is hitting hard this week, I'd like to see how they fit record low temps in the south into climate change narratives

Like that lol

[m121c]

It sounds like you're saying you oppose helping Ukraine just because the Democrats support it. If you don't have a moral code any better than that I think you'd be better off just rooting for a football team or something. I don't think I've ever seen a more stark case of good vs evil than this war. If you doubt how depraved the Russians are, check out their state run media. Julia Davis translates it on Twitter. It's totally insane.

Also, I really want to see the F-16s and A-10s go! Is that really too much to ask?

It sounds like you read my post wrong.

Im well aware Russian = Bad. But idk if I can say Ukraine (the government) = good.

Also not a fan of ramming billions in aid to them in a last minute bill on the premise those who oppose want the govt to shutdown. Shit like that is suspicious. Usually when you smell shit, theres is shit.

Kinda like the whole twitter deal everyone thought was just some conspiracy.

[jlv]

It sounds like you read my post wrong.

Im well aware Russian = Bad. But idk if I can say Ukraine (the government) = good.

Also not a fan of ramming billions in aid to them in a last minute bill on the premise those who oppose want the govt to shutdown. Shit like that is suspicious. Usually when you smell shit, theres is shit.

Kinda like the whole twitter deal everyone thought was just some conspiracy.

I read this as opposing support just because Democrats favor support:

1) The party that seems so thirsty to fight, is the party that seemingly has taken an anti war stance for decades, and were recently the doomsday WW3 alarmists when Trump took strong stances. There ALWAYS seems to be motives behind their emotional stances. They replaced paper masks and experimental vaccines with Ukraine flag profile pictures and climate change sensationalism.

Ukraine doesn't need to be "good" to deserve support. They just need to be "not evil". Russia is acting like the modern successor to the Nazis here.

It wouldn't surprise me if F-16s and A-10s could destroy Russian equipment at a lower cost than the GLMRLS missiles we're giving them now anyway.

I just saw this interview with a Ukrainian fighter pilot today:

We need Biden to stop being such a pussy and give Juice the F-16 he needs!

[Racers52]

The thing is, if he could get away with it, Putin would nuke a city for a pack of gum. What prevents him from doing that is the consequences. It doesn't matter how nice we are to him beforehand. If anything kissing his ass makes him doubt our resolve to hit back. What matters is that he's absolutely certain that initiating a nuclear attack will result in his annihilation. That's why all this talk about how maybe there shouldn't be an nuclear response if he nukes Ukraine is provocatively weak. The policy should be that if you launch nukes you'll get nuclear annihilation. Even if it's a bluff there's no downside to it. There are no more red lines after that.

This is another thing that Biden is weak on, but instead of pushing the correct Reaganesque hard line stance the Republicans are busy demanding an even weaker appeasement policy worthy of Code Pink. Submitting to nuclear blackmail is dangerously weak. It makes nuclear war more likely.

Because the Ukrainians don't deserve it. Plus I really want to see F-16s and A-10s destroying Russian tanks!

I agree with you on nuclear positioning, and you said it yourself, he would nuke anything for a pack of gum. That's my point, I think the US has to be careful with Putin. You back a dog into a corner and it will do anything to escape including starting a nuclear war.

It wouldn't surprise me if F-16s and A-10s could destroy Russian equipment at a lower cost than the GLMRLS missiles we're giving them now anyway.
We need Biden to stop being such a pussy and give Juice the F-16 he needs!

I don't know the finances specifically but it seems like training pilots, maintaining the aircraft, and supplying jet fuel plus weapons and ammo is a much larger bill than missiles. In addition, missiles have specific range capabilities whereas aircraft (especially the F16 with extra fuel tanks) have extended range capabilities and are more offensive in nature (Gulf/Iraq wars were won based on air dominance in the beginning assaults). I don't understand how you think it's a good idea to poke a sleeping bear with a really big stick and think the repercussions aren't going to affect life here in the US and globally. I think the war is bad as is, and you want to literally add jet fuel to the fire

There is plenty of footage of A10s destroying soviet era tanks, the tops pop off just like current Russian tanks do when they take a hit to the ammo storage compartment. Realistically, the Russian military would deploy SAM's and other infantry anti-air missiles, resulting in downed US aircraft flown by Ukrainians. Russia might not have the most advanced equipment but their tactics rely on the numbers game as they always have (look up Russian tanks v. german Panzer tanks in WW2).

And extra clarification, I do think Ukraine has the right to DEFEND their country, as would any other country however I don't think it should be at the expense of the US

[DBRider251]

And extra clarification, I do think Ukraine has the right to DEFEND their country, as would any other country however I don't think it should be at the expense of the US

It's so hard to say this without people thinking you're against Ukraine. I really don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when someone says I don't want our taxpayer dollars to fund another country's war.

[jlv]

I don't know the finances specifically but it seems like training pilots, maintaining the aircraft, and supplying jet fuel plus weapons and ammo is a much larger bill than missiles. In addition, missiles have specific range capabilities whereas aircraft (especially the F16 with extra fuel tanks) have extended range capabilities and are more offensive in nature (Gulf/Iraq wars were won based on air dominance in the beginning assaults). I don't understand how you think it's a good idea to poke a sleeping bear with a really big stick and think the repercussions aren't going to affect life here in the US and globally. I think the war is bad as is, and you want to literally add jet fuel to the fire :?

There is plenty of footage of A10s destroying soviet era tanks, the tops pop off just like current Russian tanks do when they take a hit to the ammo storage compartment. Realistically, the Russian military would deploy SAM's and other infantry anti-air missiles, resulting in downed US aircraft flown by Ukrainians. Russia might not have the most advanced equipment but their tactics rely on the numbers game as they always have (look up Russian tanks v. german Panzer tanks in WW2).

And extra clarification, I do think Ukraine has the right to DEFEND their country, as would any other country however I don't think it should be at the expense of the US

First off, it's not a sleeping bear. Right now it's a bear on a rampage. Do you reward that or punish it? If you don't punish it expect more rampages.

On the cost of jets vs missiles I'm mostly just BSing. I'm sure it depends on the situation but it seems like it'd be cheaper to shoot things up with A-10s instead of $100,000 GLMRS missiles. You're right that it wouldn't be safe to fly A-10s if there are lots of S-300 systems around. That's why you'd have F-16s with HARM missiles to take out the anti-aircraft systems. We do have HARM missiles cobbled on to their Mig 29s but I believe they have to be pre-programmed before takeoff because they aren't integrated with the Mig's electronics. The F-16s would let the pilots choose targets for the HARM missiles.

We're getting rid of our F-16s anyway. I can't think of a better way to use them up. They're literally used for target practice now.

Anyone who suddenly became a huge spending hawk over using a few percent of our defense budget to fsck over Putin is probably getting paid by him. This is the bargain of the century.

[Racers52]

First off, it's not a sleeping bear. Right now it's a bear on a rampage. Do you reward that or punish it? If you don't punish it expect more rampages.

On the cost of jets vs missiles I'm mostly just BSing. I'm sure it depends on the situation but it seems like it'd be cheaper to shoot things up with A-10s instead of $100,000 GLMRS missiles. You're right that it wouldn't be safe to fly A-10s if there are lots of S-300 systems around. That's why you'd have F-16s with HARM missiles to take out the anti-aircraft systems. We do have HARM missiles cobbled on to their Mig 29s but I believe they have to be pre-programmed before takeoff because they aren't integrated with the Mig's electronics. The F-16s would let the pilots choose targets for the HARM missiles.

We're getting rid of our F-16s anyway. I can't think of a better way to use them up. They're literally used for target practice now.

Anyone who suddenly became a huge spending hawk over using a few percent of our defense budget to fsck over Putin is probably getting paid by him. This is the bargain of the century.

Total war would be rampage level.

Do you think this war will bring about government change with the removal of Putin and his staff? Look at what he has done to their elections, he will not be removed so easily. I think he would do anything to stay in power, mobilize the entire country, nuclear war, you name it.
Let's say you get what you want, Putin is removed and Russia is "defeated", what rises in its place? There are many more aggressive military and political figures that would take advantage of the power vacuum. It's one of those careful what you wish for situations.

[TeamHavocRacing]

We have to end apartheid for one. Slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. Ensure a strong national defense, prevent the spread of communism in Central America, work for a Middle East peace settlement, prevent U.S. military involvement overseas. We have to ensure that America is a respected world power. That’s not to belittle our domestic problems, which are equally important, if not
more. Better and more affordable long-term care for the elderly, control and find a cure for the AIDS epidemic, clean up environmental damage from toxic waste and pollution, improve the quality of primary and secondary education, strengthen laws to crack down on crime and illegal drugs. We also have to ensure that college education is affordable for the middle class and protect Social Security for senior citizens plus conserve natural resources and wilderness areas and reduce the influence of political action committees. Economically we’re still a mess. We have to find a way to hold down the inflation rate and reduce the deficit. We also need to provide training and jobs for the unemployed as well as protect existing American jobs from unfair foreign imports. We have to make America the leader in new technology. At the same time we need to promote economic growth and business expansion and hold the line against federal income taxes and hold down interest rates while promoting opportunities for small businesses and controlling mergers and big corporate takeovers. We can’t ignore our social needs either. We have to stop people from abusing the welfare system. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights while also promoting equal rights for women but change the abortion laws to protect the right to life yet still somehow maintain women’s freedom of choice. We also have to control the influx of illegal immigrants. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values and curb graphic sex and violence on TV, in movies, in popular music, everywhere. Most importantly we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people. -Patrick Bateman 1987

[Pumaxcs]

I don't know the finances specifically but it seems like training pilots, maintaining the aircraft, and supplying jet fuel plus weapons and ammo is a much larger bill than missiles. In addition, missiles have specific range capabilities whereas aircraft (especially the F16 with extra fuel tanks) have extended range capabilities and are more offensive in nature (Gulf/Iraq wars were won based on air dominance in the beginning assaults). I don't understand how you think it's a good idea to poke a sleeping bear with a really big stick and think the repercussions aren't going to affect life here in the US and globally. I think the war is bad as is, and you want to literally add jet fuel to the fire

There is plenty of footage of A10s destroying soviet era tanks, the tops pop off just like current Russian tanks do when they take a hit to the ammo storage compartment. Realistically, the Russian military would deploy SAM's and other infantry anti-air missiles, resulting in downed US aircraft flown by Ukrainians. Russia might not have the most advanced equipment but their tactics rely on the numbers game as they always have (look up Russian tanks v. german Panzer tanks in WW2).

And extra clarification, I do think Ukraine has the right to DEFEND their country, as would any other country however I don't think it should be at the expense of the US

First off, it's not a sleeping bear. Right now it's a bear on a rampage. Do you reward that or punish it? If you don't punish it expect more rampages.

On the cost of jets vs missiles I'm mostly just BSing. I'm sure it depends on the situation but it seems like it'd be cheaper to shoot things up with A-10s instead of $100,000 GLMRS missiles. You're right that it wouldn't be safe to fly A-10s if there are lots of S-300 systems around. That's why you'd have F-16s with HARM missiles to take out the anti-aircraft systems. We do have HARM missiles cobbled on to their Mig 29s but I believe they have to be pre-programmed before takeoff because they aren't integrated with the Mig's electronics. The F-16s would let the pilots choose targets for the HARM missiles.

We're getting rid of our F-16s anyway. I can't think of a better way to use them up. They're literally used for target practice now.

Anyone who suddenly became a huge spending hawk over using a few percent of our defense budget to fsck over Putin is probably getting paid by him. This is the bargain of the century.

Yeah, the "taxpayer money" argument is not applicable here. How do you think year over year the US spends that much on defense budgets without wars? You think Lockheed Martin just doesn't do anything because there isn't a war going on? So many communities are literally built on those defense manufacturing contracts. If we stopped producing thousands upon thousands would suddenly be unemployed in the manufacturing sectors. Your taxpayer dollars are already spent as a stimulus to keep these communities running. Might as well get some use out of your money at this point.

[jlv]

Do you think this war will bring about government change with the removal of Putin and his staff? Look at what he has done to their elections, he will not be removed so easily. I think he would do anything to stay in power, mobilize the entire country, nuclear war, you name it.
Let's say you get what you want, Putin is removed and Russia is "defeated", what rises in its place? There are many more aggressive military and political figures that would take advantage of the power vacuum. It's one of those careful what you wish for situations.

I hope Putin goes down but I wouldn't bet on it. Any time a tyrant is replaced it's a good thing IMO even if the replacement is bad. The best possible outcome might be the Kremlin losing control its satellites and the country breaking up into smaller less dangerous pieces. I agree that he would use nukes to stay in power which is why it's important that it be clear to him that using nukes will be the end of him. That's the only thing he understands. Appeasement will just result in more aggression.

On Twitter there's this guy Kamil Galeev who knows a lot about Russian history and politics and he's not optimistic. Even the supposed liberal Russians are imperialistic. Definitely worth reading if you're interested in this stuff. Just be ready for some looong threads!

[FelkeyDesign]

Best advice to this whole topic: Do not vote for any Democrat EVER.

[Pumaxcs]

There is a shining example of the hard hitting journalism that keeps me coming back to this thread.

[Jrife548]

I'm fully convinced the country is straight up racist towards white people now.

Here's some examples that happened in just the past few days:

ex: 9 year old white girl gets brutally beaten by black teens on a school bus because she was white, and CRT told them she was evil because she was white. School did absolutely nothing EXCEPT tell the white family to go to a different school.

ex: White football kid shoots a group of 3 black guys with a water gun as a prank, 3 black guys cave his skull and chest in and murder him. Prosecutors argue the white kid was given "hood justice" and the 3 black guys were given probation and credit for time served, already back on the streets.

TeamHavocRacing about to come in with the most mindless rebuttal of all time and I'm excited for it!

[TeamHavocRacing]

No. I'm not.