Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine says you're wrong about that.

The sole thing stopping us from erasing Russia from the the face of the earth, right now, today-- is dickface putin's finger on the button.  The USA simply cannot be involved in a direct shooting war with Russia.  It can't happen.

yup. 

US has been training/funding/arming Ukraine for years to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. And it was that pesky "Russian puppet" Trump that started flooding Ukraine with lethal arms in 2017- something even Obama refused to do as he didn't wish to escalate tensions with Russia. Weird how a "Russian puppet" would escalate tensions with Russia though. Strange.

Anywho...you're 100% correct. Putin's threat of nuclear war is why US can't get directly involved. Anyone with a brain could tell you this. Idk why OAM is pretending why he doesn't see this. Nuclear war = life as we know it is over. You thought COVID was bad? LOL.

. The DoD budget never decreases. It's always increasing.

You might want to say "It generally increases with few exceptions."   Or not.

^ terrified of COVID....fearless when it comes to potential nuclear war....

I'm beginning to think you're 12 years old.  In all seriousness.

I simply said that Putin can do whatever he wants, citing everyone's mentioning he has nukes.  Not fearless when it comes to nuclear war.  Just that because he has them, he gets to do whatever he wants.....WHICH IS WHAT IS HAPPENEING.

Then many laugh or say I'm wrong....despite what's actually happening.  But I'm the stupid one.  

It's a big poker game and he keeps going "all-in" with a full house.  The answer isn't to fold every time.  It is to call when you have the best hand, which we do....we always do, every hand.  


We're lucky he's "only" invading Ukraine.  What if it was Poland?  What would be different BASED ON EVERYONE HERE SAYING "HE HAS NUKES, SO WE CAN'T GET INVOLVED"??  What would be different if it was Turkey or Finland?  Even if he invades a NATO country, HE STILL HAS NUKES.  

According to this board, we'd still have no choice but to shrug and donate money to the children of the poor.

We're lucky he's "only" invading Ukraine.  What if it was Poland?  What would be different BASED ON EVERYONE HERE SAYING "HE HAS NUKES, SO WE CAN'T GET INVOLVED"??  What would be different if it was Turkey or Finland?  Even if he invades a NATO country, HE STILL HAS NUKES. 

According to this board, we'd still have no choice but to shrug and donate money to the children of the poor.

Poland or Turkey (but not Finland) obviously would be an Article 5 situation, and Putin knows it.  It's also rational, I think, to try and avoid any kind of nuclear exchange.  I'm not clear what you are recommending we do here.  Do you think the US should be directly militarily involved in Ukraine, e.g., with our forces engaged with Russian forces?

Hypersonic missle now

I've simply stated (a number of times) that Putin can do whatever he wants.  That got pushback, but also included him having nukes........to be honest, I have no idea what everyone else is thinking. 


If I'm understanding everyone here correctly:

a - he can't do whatever he wants
yet
b - he has nukes, so we can't do anything militarily

.


Thus my lack of clarity with the voices arguing with mine.

Simple. What we have on the table to do if Putin attacks a NATO member is a much different strategic choice than if he attacks a non-NATO country that is frankly of no relevant strategic value to the US.

If he attacks a NATO member, we're bound by treaty to defend them militarily. Which is why he's not attacking a NATO member. 

If he attacks a non-NATO country, it doesn't mean he "can do whatever he wants", it means that unless we want to escalate the situation with him that it is basically ENSURED to develop into World War III, we are choosing to limit our responses to non-military responses. 

This isn't hard.