Is there a scenario in which you'd support committing American troops to a war in Ukraine? (1 Viewer)

[Shrink726]

If Putin wantonly targets civilian populations, I'd say yes.

 

[jcgriff2]

Absolutely not.

Biden could give a damn about the borders of the US - why should we care about anyone else's borders?

Why doesn't Biden order all cruise ships, naval passenger ships, and all available airplanes to head for Ukraine immediately and evacuate ALL 44.13 million Ukrainians to the United States and give them permanent US residency?

Because Biden is RACIST - he does not want anything to do with white Europeans even though there will be millions of dead bodies very soon, per Biden.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

If Putin wantonly targets civilian populations, I'd say yes.

If it becomes clear that his goal is the total annihilation of Ukraine and that he also doesn't plan to stop there, yes.

Committing US troops would be incredibly escalatory. While the sovereignty and people of Ukraine should be protected, it must be done in the way that will reduce the loss of life the greatest. Putin will have a much harder time continuing to justify a war if the US is not directly involved.

 

[Craig234]

Another question is, is there a circumstance in which you'd support the US killing Putin with drones? An issue with either scenario is the issue of nuclear war. It needs more of a plan than 'send troops'. There's a lot more to winning the conflict. Including the views of our allies.

 

[Shrink726]

Absolutely not.

Biden could give a damn about the borders of the US - why should we care about anyone else's borders?

Why doesn't Biden order all cruise ships, naval passenger ships, and all available airplanes to head for Ukraine immediately and evacuate ALL 44.13 million Ukrainians to the United States and give them permanent US residency?

Because Biden is RACIST - he does not want anything to do with white Europeans even though there will be millions of dead bodies very soon, per Biden.

Is there something wrong with you?

 

[armycowboy]

Absolutely not.

Biden could give a damn about the borders of the US - why should we care about anyone else's borders?

Why doesn't Biden order all cruise ships, naval passenger ships, and all available airplanes to head for Ukraine immediately and evacuate ALL 44.13 million Ukrainians to the United States and give them permanent US residency?

Because Biden is RACIST - he does not want anything to do with white Europeans even though there will be millions of dead bodies very soon, per Biden.

Alrighty, then...

 

[TheParser]

Of course, NOT.

In fact, I wish that the United States had not entered World War One. (And apparently there were a lot of Americans at that time who opposed getting involved.)

As far as World War Two is concerned, I can understand that this nation could not take Pearl Harbor lying down, but it could have simply wiped out, say, some parts of Tokyo and then say: "Don't attack us again." The Japanese would have gotten the word.

The only time for American boys to die in battle is if the mainland is attacked.

*****

No doubt the Ukrainians are lovely people, but they are not worth the life of a single American boy, IMHO.

 

[ultmd]

If Putin wantonly targets civilian populations, I'd say yes.

Only as part of a NATO operation or a UN operation...NOT unilaterally.

NATO would only do so in defense of a NATO member.

The UN would require such a move to be unanimously approved by the UN Security Council (of which, Russia serves as one of the 5 permanent members AND as the current president). And Russia (and China) are NOT going to vote "yes" on a proposition to send troops to the aid of Ukraine.

 

[armycowboy]

Of course, NOT.

In fact, I wish that the United States had not entered World War One. (And apparently there were a lot of Americans at that time who opposed getting involved.)

As far as World War Two is concerned, I can understand that this nation could not take Pearl Harbor lying down, but it could have simply wiped out, say, some parts of Tokyo and then say: "Don't attack us again." The Japanese would have gotten the word.

The only time for American boys to die in battle is if the mainland is attacked.

*****

No doubt the Ukrainians are lovely people, but they are not worth the life of a single American boy, IMHO.

How exactly were we supposed to get into position to wipe out parts of Tokyo, both geographically and through air superiority, without executing the war in the Pacific. Furthermore, Germany declared war on us.

What a stupid post.

 

[Monica33]

The Demented One will not be allowed to make that greatest mistake .

Americans have had enough of body bags.

And no action can be taken by NATO forces to support a non NATO member .

Nobody really wants to support the US -- why support a country that Putin is making look idiotic ?

They know that a Dementia ridden OAP who pisses his pants in front of the Pope will not be around much longer .

 

[ultmd]

Of course, NOT.

In fact, I wish that the United States had not entered World War One. (And apparently there were a lot of Americans at that time who opposed getting involved.)

As far as World War Two is concerned, I can understand that this nation could not take Pearl Harbor lying down, but it could have simply wiped out, say, some parts of Tokyo and then say: "Don't attack us again." The Japanese would have gotten the word.

This conveniently ignores a lot of history, @TheParser .

Like.....the fact that Japan didn't just bomb Pearl Harbor. They announced/declared war on the U.S....followed shortly thereafter, by the remaining Axis Powers (Germany and Italy).

And then there is the fact that we had no capacity (i.e. range) to bomb Tokyo...even from bases in Hawaii, at that time.....NOR did we have unfettered control of the Pacific Ocean. We bombed Tokyo as soon as we could get to it...and that was at the cost of tens and tens and tens of thousands of American troops.

Your "solution" was not an option for FDR.

The only time for American boys to die in battle is if the mainland is attacked.

So you're an isolationist.

I'm not.

But I'm also no one's idea of a Neo-con/interventionist, either. Leaving the rest of the world to fend for itself against Russia and China would be like signing our own death warrant (as a country), with a due date of about 50 years. Eventually, it would lead to a "united" world ruled by a couple of ruthless, autocratic dictatorships.....against the only remaining democracy (i.e. the U.S.).

 

[Exquisitor]

If Putin wantonly targets civilian populations, I'd say yes.

I think we should be doing drills and exercises on Ukranian soil with as many troups as we can.

 

[Craig234]

I think we should be doing drills and exercises on Ukranian soil with as many troups as we can.

That might feel good, but think it through. Let's say we did, and Putin proceeded, and our troops got into a shooting war with his. What then? Have you considered nuclear weapons?

 

[Buckeyes85]

How exactly were we supposed to get into position to wipe out parts of Tokyo, both geographically and through air superiority, without executing the war in the Pacific. Furthermore, Germany declared war on us.

What a stupid post.

It's not so hard to understand why so many people are confused about current events that are ever evolving when they have such a fundamentally poor understanding of past events that are not in doubt/question.

 

[maxparrish]

There has been a situation where the commitment of Nato troops was supportable, but at the moment no.

Let's face it, the skill of the last several Presidents at "real politick" has been wanting. Say what you will about Nixon or even Reagan, rapid deployment forces of Nato designated divisions would have started deploying in Europe starting in at least late December, as well as air wings. Moreover, it would have been made very clear to Putin that his behavior was insane, that he is contemptuous of freedom and humanity, and the west was fed up with his murdering journalists and sponsorship of cyber-attacks. We would also have made it clear that should Ukraine be invaded; he can count on NATO or US support of same kind of insurgents he supported in the same manner, till the end of time.

The moment he sent troops to occupy the separatist territories he formally violated the Budapest Agreements and gave NATO an equal right to send "peacekeepers" (at the invitation of Ukraine) into equally sized territories in the western Ukraine as "peacekeepers", providing an opportunity to cover against any Russian entry from Moldovia. More daringly they might have dashed to occupy the western areas added to the Ukraine in 1939, stolen by the Soviets... or even a dash to the Dnieper River. Recreating the Elbe as the new dividing line between east and west Ukraine.

However, that potential strategy is lost because it would have required someone like Nixon or Reagan, someone will balls to have deployed NATO's forces at the ready for an incursion.

So, what now? The only option is to start redeploying to Europe, without signaling anything more than defensive measures of NATO countries. Intervention may then still be an option, as long as it didn't seek to engage Russian troops offensively.

Otherwise, if Putin wants all of Ukraine he will get it.

 

[Shrink726]

That might feel good, but think it through. Let's say we did, and Putin proceeded, and our troops got into a shooting war with his. What then? Have you considered nuclear weapons?

I think we need to assume that no one would be stupid enough to use nukes (MAD and all that). In an all out conventional war with the USA, Russia would get slaughtered.

 

[Shrink726]

I think we need to admit that economic sanctions, no matter how severe, may not deter this asshole. In that case we need to decide if we take him on militarily. The alternative is to simply allow this clown to annex one country after another.

 

[Craig234]

I think we need to assume that no one would be stupid enough to use nukes (MAD and all that). In an all out conventional war with the USA, Russia would get slaughtered.

Playing chicken with nuclear war is insane. You don't want nuclear war to have nothing but the restraint of every leader, while going to war with said leaders. You seem not to understand the danger, assuming 'no one would do that'. Ya, no one would do WWII either, killing 50 million leaving nations in ruin. Who would think that's a good idea?

 

[Shrink726]

Playing chicken with nuclear war is insane. You don't want nuclear war to have nothing but the restraint of every leader, while going to war with said leaders. You seem not to understand the danger, assuming 'no one would do that'. Ya, no one would do WWII either, killing 50 million leaving nations in ruin. Who would think that's a good idea?

Is it a better idea to let Putin annex one sovereign nation after another because we're too scared to stand up to him?

There's a very good chance that economic sanctions - no matter how severe - may do nothing to slow him down.

 

[Craig234]

Is it a better idea to let Putin annex one sovereign nation after another because we're too scared to stand up to him?

I posted a thread about the topic. The right answer might be more 'yes' to that than you think, but there's more to the options we need to look at.

 

[Luce]

No.

 

[Luce]

I think we need to assume that no one would be stupid enough to use nukes (MAD and all that). In an all out conventional war with the USA, Russia would get slaughtered.

And then the fate of the world is in the hands of the least stable belligerent.

 

[jamesrage]

No. Ukraine's sovereignty is not worth the lives and billions of tax dollars of Americans.

 

[Helix]

No more undeclared wars that even hawks aren't willing to pay for in the form of wartime tax rates and shared sacrifice.

 

[Razoo]

There is too much we don't know ...............