Apparently we're in agreement. Coitus interruptus it is.

(01-24-2022 12:20 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 04:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 12:53 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  This maybe ignorant but my thoughts:
1) Biden did nothing to deter. Putin knows he’s a Pus. I don’t care about Ukraine one bit but am for peace.

2) If it wasn’t for Russia in WWI and WWII none of us would be here. Interestingly Russia was most of Eastern Europe until after WWII. If it wasn’t for the Cold War would we be Allies with Russia? Was the Cold War just used by both nations to further control their own populations?

3) Who’s the real bad guys? Biden Admin? Putin Russia? Ukraine? Not an obvious answer to me and likely a mix of all 3.

4) F sending any equipment/money to any side! Should have done more sooner. We’ve known this was possibly coming since at least Crimea under Obama. If Western Europe wants to intervene let them. We are not the worlds police unless attacked or a prime national interest is under siege. Shady politics, business, etc. is Ukraine

Is that what they taught at Ohio St.? Russia was the first country to lose WWI. The Ukraine is just minding their own business. They have already been invaded by Russia twice.

I said if it wasn't for Russia/USSR we wouldn't be here right now. Not who is better or who won.

Sure, they surrendered in WWI while their country was going through a revolution, but still where a huge part of the Eastern front and many of the important battles. Their side won even if they surrendered first.

WWII I think it's without question that if Hitler didn't go into the Soviet Union, the war likely would have gone a different direction. I don't care if Nazi Germany would have beat the Soviet's minus winter. They didn't/ Soviets were aware of winter and Nazi's should have been. They sacrificed more soldiers and civilians than any country and also accounted for the vast majority of Nazi deaths.

Now if U.S. wasn't in either yeah the outcomes of both are different as well. Doesn't mean we can't give Russia credit where credit is due.

More on topic:
Why is Ukraine our ally? Pretty obvious and I'm tired of us being allies with countries only for the fact we want more power, well it's been that way since blank, and they want protection. Our allied decisions should be very strategic and our stances with countries should be looked at far more often than they are.

You nailed it regarding WWII. Most people don't understand how critical Russia's involvement was to allies ultimately winning.

(01-24-2022 06:10 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 04:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 03:58 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 03:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 03:45 AM)Todor Wrote:  NATO has troops on the ground in Serbia to this day. I wasnt referencing Bosnia. And all of the other points are wrong. The US has bombed spots in Somalia and Yemen, separate from any UN mandate which NATO is a not authorized to enforce anyway. Invading doesn't have to mean boots on the ground if its killing people and destroying the country. NATO troops are all over Syria and refuse to leave and are there destroying things. Basically daring anyone to stop them so a full scale invasion can be excused.

Every time the US has internal political problems, they invade another country, usually using NATO as " voucher" for them.

Biden's administration is falling apart, so all of a sudden Russia is invading Ukraine ANY second, and both sides of the idiot American public fall for it hook, line, and sinker, because deep down the wars make Americans feel strong and important in age when its increasingly weak and irrelevant compared to the past.

The troops in Serbia are an international coalition of which NATO is simply a part of. For instance, Russian troops are in Serbia serving as part of the pace keeping force---they clearly are not part of NATO. The US is not NATO. NATO is a 30 member coalition that has to vote to do something. What you dont seem to understand is that there is a HUGE difference between NATO doing something and a member nation acting independently. Turkey, a NATO member---is deeply involved in Syria----yet NATO as an organization has expressly refused to do anything there.

Why are US troops in Syria against the wishes of a sovereign government? Sometimes its NATO, sometimes they switch uniforms, often they simply wear no insignia. Its all just a shell game that no one else makes the distinction between except as a cop out to push aside criticisms.

As they say, its no point in talking with someone who has drunk the kool aid and remains a true believer.

Either way, Russia doesn't want NATO or American troops to invade. That's the issue in Ukraine.

lol---dude---Russia is the only foreign nation with uninvited troops on Ukrainian soil---Putin himself has admitted as much. Might want to stop getting all your news from the Daily Pravda. The only US troops I know of in Ukraine were small groups doing tactics training and there might be some doing training on any new weapons systems being sent. As for Syria, the US troops are there due to Obama. Officially, they are there to support the Kurdish YPG Syrian Democratic forces as part of the war against ISIS. Again---that is the US acting on its own. That is not a NATO sponsored/endorsed operation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/d...ce-ukraine

Who owns The Guardian, and what point of view of are they reporting? Who are their sponsors? What governments are they working for? Whose foreign policy falls EXACTLY in line with what they report?

All major US and British media toe the State Department and Foreign Secretary office line daily. In not one report will you find the Guardian question the policies of the State Department.

The Guardian was exactly in line with Iraq having WMD. The Guardian fell exactly in line with Britain and the US funding the FSA and Al Nusra, and then we ended up with ISIS.

Go back to the Guardian reporting in Syria and Yugoslavia and see if it doesn't fall EXACTLY in line with the State Department.

Whose news do they report? Your 7 old article from the Guardian, during a time when Ukraine was killing it own citizens in Eastern Ukraine doesn't exactly lend credence to anything.

What are your "independent" sources? Go to RT and they tell you they are funded by the Kremlin. Its right on their website.

Go to the Guardian, CNN and others and they NEVER disclose they print articles written by government employees and passed off as news. They don't tell you that. It has to come out in whistle blower reports.

Sigh....Here are MULTIPLE sources including Reuters, NBC, and USA Today reporting that Putin admitted Russian forces were deployed in Ukraine. Facts are facts. It comes straight from Putin. This was widely known long before Putin actually admitted it (see "little green men").

https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-p...1H20140417

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain...sts-n82756

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015.../77480364/

(01-24-2022 12:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 06:10 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 04:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 03:58 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 03:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The troops in Serbia are an international coalition of which NATO is simply a part of. For instance, Russian troops are in Serbia serving as part of the pace keeping force---they clearly are not part of NATO. The US is not NATO. NATO is a 30 member coalition that has to vote to do something. What you dont seem to understand is that there is a HUGE difference between NATO doing something and a member nation acting independently. Turkey, a NATO member---is deeply involved in Syria----yet NATO as an organization has expressly refused to do anything there.

Why are US troops in Syria against the wishes of a sovereign government? Sometimes its NATO, sometimes they switch uniforms, often they simply wear no insignia. Its all just a shell game that no one else makes the distinction between except as a cop out to push aside criticisms.

As they say, its no point in talking with someone who has drunk the kool aid and remains a true believer.

Either way, Russia doesn't want NATO or American troops to invade. That's the issue in Ukraine.

lol---dude---Russia is the only foreign nation with uninvited troops on Ukrainian soil---Putin himself has admitted as much. Might want to stop getting all your news from the Daily Pravda. The only US troops I know of in Ukraine were small groups doing tactics training and there might be some doing training on any new weapons systems being sent. As for Syria, the US troops are there due to Obama. Officially, they are there to support the Kurdish YPG Syrian Democratic forces as part of the war against ISIS. Again---that is the US acting on its own. That is not a NATO sponsored/endorsed operation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/d...ce-ukraine

Who owns The Guardian, and what point of view of are they reporting? Who are their sponsors? What governments are they working for? Whose foreign policy falls EXACTLY in line with what they report?

All major US and British media toe the State Department and Foreign Secretary office line daily. In not one report will you find the Guardian question the policies of the State Department.

The Guardian was exactly in line with Iraq having WMD. The Guardian fell exactly in line with Britain and the US funding the FSA and Al Nusra, and then we ended up with ISIS.

Go back to the Guardian reporting in Syria and Yugoslavia and see if it doesn't fall EXACTLY in line with the State Department.

Whose news do they report? Your 7 old article from the Guardian, during a time when Ukraine was killing it own citizens in Eastern Ukraine doesn't exactly lend credence to anything.

What are your "independent" sources? Go to RT and they tell you they are funded by the Kremlin. Its right on their website.

Go to the Guardian, CNN and others and they NEVER disclose they print articles written by government employees and passed off as news. They don't tell you that. It has to come out in whistle blower reports.

Sigh....Here are MULTIPLE sources including Reuters, NBC, and USA Today reporting that Putin admitted Russian forces were deployed in Ukraine. Facts are facts. It comes straight from Putin. This was widely known long before Putin actually admitted it (see "little green men").

https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-p...1H20140417

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain...sts-n82756

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015.../77480364/

So do you want us to get involved in Ukraine or not?

(01-24-2022 12:59 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 06:10 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 04:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 03:58 AM)Todor Wrote:  Why are US troops in Syria against the wishes of a sovereign government? Sometimes its NATO, sometimes they switch uniforms, often they simply wear no insignia. Its all just a shell game that no one else makes the distinction between except as a cop out to push aside criticisms.

As they say, its no point in talking with someone who has drunk the kool aid and remains a true believer.

Either way, Russia doesn't want NATO or American troops to invade. That's the issue in Ukraine.

lol---dude---Russia is the only foreign nation with uninvited troops on Ukrainian soil---Putin himself has admitted as much. Might want to stop getting all your news from the Daily Pravda. The only US troops I know of in Ukraine were small groups doing tactics training and there might be some doing training on any new weapons systems being sent. As for Syria, the US troops are there due to Obama. Officially, they are there to support the Kurdish YPG Syrian Democratic forces as part of the war against ISIS. Again---that is the US acting on its own. That is not a NATO sponsored/endorsed operation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/d...ce-ukraine

Who owns The Guardian, and what point of view of are they reporting? Who are their sponsors? What governments are they working for? Whose foreign policy falls EXACTLY in line with what they report?

All major US and British media toe the State Department and Foreign Secretary office line daily. In not one report will you find the Guardian question the policies of the State Department.

The Guardian was exactly in line with Iraq having WMD. The Guardian fell exactly in line with Britain and the US funding the FSA and Al Nusra, and then we ended up with ISIS.

Go back to the Guardian reporting in Syria and Yugoslavia and see if it doesn't fall EXACTLY in line with the State Department.

Whose news do they report? Your 7 old article from the Guardian, during a time when Ukraine was killing it own citizens in Eastern Ukraine doesn't exactly lend credence to anything.

What are your "independent" sources? Go to RT and they tell you they are funded by the Kremlin. Its right on their website.

Go to the Guardian, CNN and others and they NEVER disclose they print articles written by government employees and passed off as news. They don't tell you that. It has to come out in whistle blower reports.

Sigh....Here are MULTIPLE sources including Reuters, NBC, and USA Today reporting that Putin admitted Russian forces were deployed in Ukraine. Facts are facts. It comes straight from Putin. This was widely known long before Putin actually admitted it (see "little green men").

https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-p...1H20140417

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain...sts-n82756

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015.../77480364/

So do you want us to get involved in Ukraine or not?

Its too late to do anything. The error has already been made. Had we not telegraphed that we would not use force, the invasion would likely never happen. Putin is not stupid. He doesnt want to provoke a shooting war with NATO. Neither side comes out of that in good shape. However, if you telegraph that you arent going to use force, then you essentially told Putin Ukraine is his to take with essentially no consequences. I mean there may or may not be a few sanctions involved---but those are easy to remove as Putin can simply threaten to invade anther former Soviet Republic and use the threat as a negotiating chip to have sanctions reduced or removed (or it can just take another Republic).

The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Whoever is more willing to use force is going to win the day and has no reason to stop aggressive behavior until someone who is also willing to use force is encountered. My point is---it doest matter if you really are willing to fight over Ukraine or not----its simply stupid to let your strategic rival know ahead of time that you absolutely will not fight over Ukraine. Thats basically a green light to invade.

Biden is just like his democratic predecessor. They love being on the receiving end of a little Ruskie "minor incursion".

That's the problem with their "draw lines in the sand" foreign policy style. They like to finger paint in the sand while men like former President Trump don't put up with BS from our adversaries. There's a reason Putin waiting for Biden to be in the White House before pulling this again (he punked Obama in the Crimea too).

(01-24-2022 12:31 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:20 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 04:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 12:53 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  This maybe ignorant but my thoughts:
1) Biden did nothing to deter. Putin knows he’s a Pus. I don’t care about Ukraine one bit but am for peace.

2) If it wasn’t for Russia in WWI and WWII none of us would be here. Interestingly Russia was most of Eastern Europe until after WWII. If it wasn’t for the Cold War would we be Allies with Russia? Was the Cold War just used by both nations to further control their own populations?

3) Who’s the real bad guys? Biden Admin? Putin Russia? Ukraine? Not an obvious answer to me and likely a mix of all 3.

4) F sending any equipment/money to any side! Should have done more sooner. We’ve known this was possibly coming since at least Crimea under Obama. If Western Europe wants to intervene let them. We are not the worlds police unless attacked or a prime national interest is under siege. Shady politics, business, etc. is Ukraine

Is that what they taught at Ohio St.? Russia was the first country to lose WWI. The Ukraine is just minding their own business. They have already been invaded by Russia twice.

I said if it wasn't for Russia/USSR we wouldn't be here right now. Not who is better or who won.

Sure, they surrendered in WWI while their country was going through a revolution, but still where a huge part of the Eastern front and many of the important battles. Their side won even if they surrendered first.

WWII I think it's without question that if Hitler didn't go into the Soviet Union, the war likely would have gone a different direction. I don't care if Nazi Germany would have beat the Soviet's minus winter. They didn't/ Soviets were aware of winter and Nazi's should have been. They sacrificed more soldiers and civilians than any country and also accounted for the vast majority of Nazi deaths.

Now if U.S. wasn't in either yeah the outcomes of both are different as well. Doesn't mean we can't give Russia credit where credit is due.

More on topic:
Why is Ukraine our ally? Pretty obvious and I'm tired of us being allies with countries only for the fact we want more power, well it's been that way since blank, and they want protection. Our allied decisions should be very strategic and our stances with countries should be looked at far more often than they are.

You nailed it regarding WWII. Most people don't understand how critical Russia's involvement was to allies ultimately winning.

Even China was our ally in the Pacific. The Soviet-led invasion of Manchuria with Chinese backing and the eradication of Imperial Japan's most decorated regiment of over 700,000 soldiers--the Kwantung Army--ultimately led to the surrender of Japan.

Emperor Hirohito didn't care about people's lives. He expected the Japanese people to die for him. That's why he was largely unphased by the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th that killed over 175,000 civilian men, women, children, and babies by U.S. Democrat president, Harry Truman. Hirohito was much more concerned with the loss at Manchuria finalized in late August putting Stalin at his doorstep without a strong army left to protect him--to die for him. Japan surrendered in early September 1945.

The question we must ask, is Vladimir Putin poised to create a political Holodomor the way Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik regime created a physical Holodomor that ultimately forced Ukraine to become a Soviet republic? And should we care? Should the rest of the world care?

Correction: Stalin, not Lenin, was largely responsible for the Great Famine. Lenin was a decade before, and Ukraine became a possession of Lenin and the Republic in 1922.

(01-23-2022 08:33 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  China is even more eager to dominate the world than Russia. Putin seems to be caught up in reconstructing the old USSR. He really has no legitimate reason to take the Ukraine. No one there cares in the least about invading Russia. Meanwhile in the east the Chinese need oil. They could probably quite easily take the disputed oil rich regions of Eastern Russia while Putin is playing King with 100,000 soldiers in the Ukraine. There is no telling what the outcome of this could end up being.

Actually, a war between these two would be great. Two of our enemies would be downsizing their militaries at the same time and if we could manage to keep our noses out of it we could just pick up the pieces. No need to take sides when both of them hate our guts and would be more than happy to see us fail in the world stage.

(01-24-2022 02:19 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 08:33 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  China is even more eager to dominate the world than Russia. Putin seems to be caught up in reconstructing the old USSR. He really has no legitimate reason to take the Ukraine. No one there cares in the least about invading Russia. Meanwhile in the east the Chinese need oil. They could probably quite easily take the disputed oil rich regions of Eastern Russia while Putin is playing King with 100,000 soldiers in the Ukraine. There is no telling what the outcome of this could end up being.

Actually, a war between these two would be great. Two of our enemies would be downsizing their militaries at the same time and if we could manage to keep our noses out of it we could just pick up the pieces. No need to take sides when both of them hate our guts and would be more than happy to see us fail in the world stage.

That's assuming a level of foreign policy intellect that the Biden administration has not and likely will not prove they have. They've literally screwed up everything possible in one year. He's about to send U.S. troops to a country and region that has never funded or defended themselves. They rely on U.S. cash and troops to save them. The correct answer is to tell NATO, deal with it on your own. We've spent and done enough for you. Instead, we're on the brink of sending troops and losing pieces while China waits it out and gets stronger.

BREAKING: Ukrainian official says Americans have no immediate threat to evacuate, says ‘Americans are safer in Kyiv than they are in LA’

(01-24-2022 04:06 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 02:19 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(01-23-2022 08:33 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  China is even more eager to dominate the world than Russia. Putin seems to be caught up in reconstructing the old USSR. He really has no legitimate reason to take the Ukraine. No one there cares in the least about invading Russia. Meanwhile in the east the Chinese need oil. They could probably quite easily take the disputed oil rich regions of Eastern Russia while Putin is playing King with 100,000 soldiers in the Ukraine. There is no telling what the outcome of this could end up being.

Actually, a war between these two would be great. Two of our enemies would be downsizing their militaries at the same time and if we could manage to keep our noses out of it we could just pick up the pieces. No need to take sides when both of them hate our guts and would be more than happy to see us fail in the world stage.

That's assuming a level of foreign policy intellect that the Biden administration has not and likely will not prove they have. They've literally screwed up everything possible in one year. He's about to send U.S. troops to a country and region that has never funded or defended themselves. They rely on U.S. cash and troops to save them. The correct answer is to tell NATO, deal with it on your own. We've spent and done enough for you. Instead, we're on the brink of sending troops and losing pieces while China waits it out and gets stronger.

Between Trump and Crimea invasion, at least 10 nations are actually meeting their obligations of 2% of GDP. Too little too late imo though

(01-24-2022 01:34 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:31 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:20 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 04:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 12:53 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  This maybe ignorant but my thoughts:
1) Biden did nothing to deter. Putin knows he’s a Pus. I don’t care about Ukraine one bit but am for peace.

2) If it wasn’t for Russia in WWI and WWII none of us would be here. Interestingly Russia was most of Eastern Europe until after WWII. If it wasn’t for the Cold War would we be Allies with Russia? Was the Cold War just used by both nations to further control their own populations?

3) Who’s the real bad guys? Biden Admin? Putin Russia? Ukraine? Not an obvious answer to me and likely a mix of all 3.

4) F sending any equipment/money to any side! Should have done more sooner. We’ve known this was possibly coming since at least Crimea under Obama. If Western Europe wants to intervene let them. We are not the worlds police unless attacked or a prime national interest is under siege. Shady politics, business, etc. is Ukraine

Is that what they taught at Ohio St.? Russia was the first country to lose WWI. The Ukraine is just minding their own business. They have already been invaded by Russia twice.

I said if it wasn't for Russia/USSR we wouldn't be here right now. Not who is better or who won.

Sure, they surrendered in WWI while their country was going through a revolution, but still where a huge part of the Eastern front and many of the important battles. Their side won even if they surrendered first.

WWII I think it's without question that if Hitler didn't go into the Soviet Union, the war likely would have gone a different direction. I don't care if Nazi Germany would have beat the Soviet's minus winter. They didn't/ Soviets were aware of winter and Nazi's should have been. They sacrificed more soldiers and civilians than any country and also accounted for the vast majority of Nazi deaths.

Now if U.S. wasn't in either yeah the outcomes of both are different as well. Doesn't mean we can't give Russia credit where credit is due.

More on topic:
Why is Ukraine our ally? Pretty obvious and I'm tired of us being allies with countries only for the fact we want more power, well it's been that way since blank, and they want protection. Our allied decisions should be very strategic and our stances with countries should be looked at far more often than they are.

You nailed it regarding WWII. Most people don't understand how critical Russia's involvement was to allies ultimately winning.

Even China was our ally in the Pacific. The Soviet-led invasion of Manchuria with Chinese backing and the eradication of Imperial Japan's most decorated regiment of over 700,000 soldiers--the Kwantung Army--ultimately led to the surrender of Japan.

Emperor Hirohito didn't care about people's lives. He expected the Japanese people to die for him. That's why he was largely unphased by the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th that killed over 175,000 civilian men, women, children, and babies by U.S. Democrat president, Harry Truman. Hirohito was much more concerned with the loss at Manchuria finalized in late August putting Stalin at his doorstep without a strong army left to protect him--to die for him. Japan surrendered in early September 1945.

That is true. He was completely unmoved by the nuclear bombing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. But when Stalin began preparations for a Soviet invasion, Japan surrendered within days of his announcement. And that, folks, is how Stalin ended WWII.

(01-24-2022 01:34 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:31 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:20 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 04:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 12:53 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  This maybe ignorant but my thoughts:
1) Biden did nothing to deter. Putin knows he’s a Pus. I don’t care about Ukraine one bit but am for peace.

2) If it wasn’t for Russia in WWI and WWII none of us would be here. Interestingly Russia was most of Eastern Europe until after WWII. If it wasn’t for the Cold War would we be Allies with Russia? Was the Cold War just used by both nations to further control their own populations?

3) Who’s the real bad guys? Biden Admin? Putin Russia? Ukraine? Not an obvious answer to me and likely a mix of all 3.

4) F sending any equipment/money to any side! Should have done more sooner. We’ve known this was possibly coming since at least Crimea under Obama. If Western Europe wants to intervene let them. We are not the worlds police unless attacked or a prime national interest is under siege. Shady politics, business, etc. is Ukraine

Is that what they taught at Ohio St.? Russia was the first country to lose WWI. The Ukraine is just minding their own business. They have already been invaded by Russia twice.

I said if it wasn't for Russia/USSR we wouldn't be here right now. Not who is better or who won.

Sure, they surrendered in WWI while their country was going through a revolution, but still where a huge part of the Eastern front and many of the important battles. Their side won even if they surrendered first.

WWII I think it's without question that if Hitler didn't go into the Soviet Union, the war likely would have gone a different direction. I don't care if Nazi Germany would have beat the Soviet's minus winter. They didn't/ Soviets were aware of winter and Nazi's should have been. They sacrificed more soldiers and civilians than any country and also accounted for the vast majority of Nazi deaths.

Now if U.S. wasn't in either yeah the outcomes of both are different as well. Doesn't mean we can't give Russia credit where credit is due.

More on topic:
Why is Ukraine our ally? Pretty obvious and I'm tired of us being allies with countries only for the fact we want more power, well it's been that way since blank, and they want protection. Our allied decisions should be very strategic and our stances with countries should be looked at far more often than they are.

You nailed it regarding WWII. Most people don't understand how critical Russia's involvement was to allies ultimately winning.

Even China was our ally in the Pacific. The Soviet-led invasion of Manchuria with Chinese backing and the eradication of Imperial Japan's most decorated regiment of over 700,000 soldiers--the Kwantung Army--ultimately led to the surrender of Japan. The nukes would have brought things to an end just as quickly in Germany as they did in Japan.

Emperor Hirohito didn't care about people's lives. He expected the Japanese people to die for him. That's why he was largely unphased by the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th that killed over 175,000 civilian men, women, children, and babies by U.S. Democrat president, Harry Truman. Hirohito was much more concerned with the loss at Manchuria finalized in late August putting Stalin at his doorstep without a strong army left to protect him--to die for him. Japan surrendered in early September 1945.

Ehhh. Japan was facing a homeland invasion anyway. Furthermore, with Germany defeated, millions of Allied troops were to be pulled out out of Europe and redirected toward Japan. One reason Truman dropped the nukes was to avoid having to invade the Japanese home islands, a job that was expected to cost the US over a million casualties.

The reality was having Russia on the Allied side was a tremendous help---but once America was involved---the Allies were always going to win provided Britain held on as a base of operations. Once the industrial might of the US got going, Germany had no chance. The bottom line, it might have taken a little longer, but Germany---its industry bombed to rubble and facing a nuclear armed opponent----was never going to last much past 1945 regardless of what Russia did.

(01-24-2022 04:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:34 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:31 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:20 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 04:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  Is that what they taught at Ohio St.? Russia was the first country to lose WWI. The Ukraine is just minding their own business. They have already been invaded by Russia twice.

I said if it wasn't for Russia/USSR we wouldn't be here right now. Not who is better or who won.

Sure, they surrendered in WWI while their country was going through a revolution, but still where a huge part of the Eastern front and many of the important battles. Their side won even if they surrendered first.

WWII I think it's without question that if Hitler didn't go into the Soviet Union, the war likely would have gone a different direction. I don't care if Nazi Germany would have beat the Soviet's minus winter. They didn't/ Soviets were aware of winter and Nazi's should have been. They sacrificed more soldiers and civilians than any country and also accounted for the vast majority of Nazi deaths.

Now if U.S. wasn't in either yeah the outcomes of both are different as well. Doesn't mean we can't give Russia credit where credit is due.

More on topic:
Why is Ukraine our ally? Pretty obvious and I'm tired of us being allies with countries only for the fact we want more power, well it's been that way since blank, and they want protection. Our allied decisions should be very strategic and our stances with countries should be looked at far more often than they are.

You nailed it regarding WWII. Most people don't understand how critical Russia's involvement was to allies ultimately winning.

Even China was our ally in the Pacific. The Soviet-led invasion of Manchuria with Chinese backing and the eradication of Imperial Japan's most decorated regiment of over 700,000 soldiers--the Kwantung Army--ultimately led to the surrender of Japan. The nukes would have brought things to an end just as quickly in Germany as they did in Japan.

Emperor Hirohito didn't care about people's lives. He expected the Japanese people to die for him. That's why he was largely unphased by the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th that killed over 175,000 civilian men, women, children, and babies by U.S. Democrat president, Harry Truman. Hirohito was much more concerned with the loss at Manchuria finalized in late August putting Stalin at his doorstep without a strong army left to protect him--to die for him. Japan surrendered in early September 1945.

Ehhh. Japan was facing a homeland invasion anyway. Furthermore, with Germany defeated, millions of Allied troops were to be pulled out out of Europe and redirected toward Japan. One reason Truman dropped the nukes was to avoid having to invade the Japanese home islands, a job that was expected to cost the US over a million casualties.

The reality was having Russia on the Allied side was a tremendous help---but once America was involved---the Allies were always going to win provided Britain held on as a base of operations. Once the industrial might of the US got going, Germany had no chance. The bottom line, it might have taken a little longer, but Germany---its industry bombed to rubble and facing a nuclear armed opponent----was never going to last much past 1945 regardless of what Russia did.

Part of the reason the Geneva Conventions of 1949 made murdering non-civilian combatants a war crime wasn't just because of the atrocities committed by the Nazis with the Holocaust. What we did during Operation Meetinghouse and the random bombings of Tokyo that took out homes, schools, hospitals, grocery stores, etc in addition to the nuclear bombings that wiped out a grand total of over 300,000 civilian lives in Japan would've been considered a war crime by the standards of that convention--all another shining example of the U.S. Democrat Party's legacy.

When the history question is asked what political party affiliation of what nation is responsible for the only nuclear bombing of human beings in world history?

The answer?

United States Democrat Party

(01-24-2022 04:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:34 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:31 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:20 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  

(01-22-2022 04:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  Is that what they taught at Ohio St.? Russia was the first country to lose WWI. The Ukraine is just minding their own business. They have already been invaded by Russia twice.

I said if it wasn't for Russia/USSR we wouldn't be here right now. Not who is better or who won.

Sure, they surrendered in WWI while their country was going through a revolution, but still where a huge part of the Eastern front and many of the important battles. Their side won even if they surrendered first.

WWII I think it's without question that if Hitler didn't go into the Soviet Union, the war likely would have gone a different direction. I don't care if Nazi Germany would have beat the Soviet's minus winter. They didn't/ Soviets were aware of winter and Nazi's should have been. They sacrificed more soldiers and civilians than any country and also accounted for the vast majority of Nazi deaths.

Now if U.S. wasn't in either yeah the outcomes of both are different as well. Doesn't mean we can't give Russia credit where credit is due.

More on topic:
Why is Ukraine our ally? Pretty obvious and I'm tired of us being allies with countries only for the fact we want more power, well it's been that way since blank, and they want protection. Our allied decisions should be very strategic and our stances with countries should be looked at far more often than they are.

You nailed it regarding WWII. Most people don't understand how critical Russia's involvement was to allies ultimately winning.

Even China was our ally in the Pacific. The Soviet-led invasion of Manchuria with Chinese backing and the eradication of Imperial Japan's most decorated regiment of over 700,000 soldiers--the Kwantung Army--ultimately led to the surrender of Japan. The nukes would have brought things to an end just as quickly in Germany as they did in Japan.

Emperor Hirohito didn't care about people's lives. He expected the Japanese people to die for him. That's why he was largely unphased by the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th that killed over 175,000 civilian men, women, children, and babies by U.S. Democrat president, Harry Truman. Hirohito was much more concerned with the loss at Manchuria finalized in late August putting Stalin at his doorstep without a strong army left to protect him--to die for him. Japan surrendered in early September 1945.

Ehhh. Japan was facing a homeland invasion anyway. Furthermore, with Germany defeated, millions of Allied troops were to be pulled out out of Europe and redirected toward Japan. One reason Truman dropped the nukes was to avoid having to invade the Japanese home islands, a job that was expected to cost the US over a million casualties.

The reality was having Russia on the Allied side was a tremendous help---but once America was involved---the Allies were always going to win provided Britain held on as a base of operations. Once the industrial might of the US got going, Germany had no chance. The bottom line, it might have taken a little longer, but Germany---its industry bombed to rubble and facing a nuclear armed opponent----was never going to last much past 1945 regardless of what Russia did.

Many experts say what promoted the surrender was the Soviets, not the bombs.

https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/educatio...as%20born.

(01-24-2022 04:49 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 04:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:34 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:31 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:20 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  I said if it wasn't for Russia/USSR we wouldn't be here right now. Not who is better or who won.

Sure, they surrendered in WWI while their country was going through a revolution, but still where a huge part of the Eastern front and many of the important battles. Their side won even if they surrendered first.

WWII I think it's without question that if Hitler didn't go into the Soviet Union, the war likely would have gone a different direction. I don't care if Nazi Germany would have beat the Soviet's minus winter. They didn't/ Soviets were aware of winter and Nazi's should have been. They sacrificed more soldiers and civilians than any country and also accounted for the vast majority of Nazi deaths.

Now if U.S. wasn't in either yeah the outcomes of both are different as well. Doesn't mean we can't give Russia credit where credit is due.

More on topic:
Why is Ukraine our ally? Pretty obvious and I'm tired of us being allies with countries only for the fact we want more power, well it's been that way since blank, and they want protection. Our allied decisions should be very strategic and our stances with countries should be looked at far more often than they are.

You nailed it regarding WWII. Most people don't understand how critical Russia's involvement was to allies ultimately winning.

Even China was our ally in the Pacific. The Soviet-led invasion of Manchuria with Chinese backing and the eradication of Imperial Japan's most decorated regiment of over 700,000 soldiers--the Kwantung Army--ultimately led to the surrender of Japan. The nukes would have brought things to an end just as quickly in Germany as they did in Japan.

Emperor Hirohito didn't care about people's lives. He expected the Japanese people to die for him. That's why he was largely unphased by the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th that killed over 175,000 civilian men, women, children, and babies by U.S. Democrat president, Harry Truman. Hirohito was much more concerned with the loss at Manchuria finalized in late August putting Stalin at his doorstep without a strong army left to protect him--to die for him. Japan surrendered in early September 1945.

Ehhh. Japan was facing a homeland invasion anyway. Furthermore, with Germany defeated, millions of Allied troops were to be pulled out out of Europe and redirected toward Japan. One reason Truman dropped the nukes was to avoid having to invade the Japanese home islands, a job that was expected to cost the US over a million casualties.

The reality was having Russia on the Allied side was a tremendous help---but once America was involved---the Allies were always going to win provided Britain held on as a base of operations. Once the industrial might of the US got going, Germany had no chance. The bottom line, it might have taken a little longer, but Germany---its industry bombed to rubble and facing a nuclear armed opponent----was never going to last much past 1945 regardless of what Russia did.

Part of the reason the Geneva Conventions of 1949 made murdering non-civilian combatants a war crime wasn't just because of the atrocities committed by the Nazis with the Holocaust. What we did during Operation Meetinghouse and the random bombings of Tokyo that took out homes, schools, hospitals, grocery stores, etc in addition to the nuclear bombings that wiped out a grand total of over 300,000 civilian lives in Japan would've been considered a war crime by the standards of that convention--all another shining example of the U.S. Democrat Party's legacy.

When the history question is asked what political party affiliation of what nation is responsible for the only nuclear bombing of human beings in world history?

The answer?

United States Democrat Party

To be clear---that was simply how WWII was fought BY BOTH SIDES. Japan indiscriminately bombed Chinese and Allied populations. Germany indiscriminately bombed Allied cities during the Battle of Britain and in Poland. We did it in Japan---and we did it in German cities like Dresden. That said---"strategic bombing" from 20,000 feet in 1945 was a crap shoot. Until we had smart bombs---attempting to hit key targets in populated areas was bound to result in civilian casualties. The reality was the Axis powers largely made it clear early in the war that it would be true "all out" war and that civilians would only be spared in cases where defenders declared an open city and withdrew offering no resistance. Thats one reason France threw in the towel so quickly. Much of their armed strength had not yet even been engaged in the fight when they surrendered---they could have easily fought on---but the damage to their infrastructure and great cities would have been catastrophic had the French done so. The French leadership was unwilling to risk that.

(01-24-2022 04:54 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 04:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:34 PM)All4One Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:31 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:20 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  I said if it wasn't for Russia/USSR we wouldn't be here right now. Not who is better or who won.

Sure, they surrendered in WWI while their country was going through a revolution, but still where a huge part of the Eastern front and many of the important battles. Their side won even if they surrendered first.

WWII I think it's without question that if Hitler didn't go into the Soviet Union, the war likely would have gone a different direction. I don't care if Nazi Germany would have beat the Soviet's minus winter. They didn't/ Soviets were aware of winter and Nazi's should have been. They sacrificed more soldiers and civilians than any country and also accounted for the vast majority of Nazi deaths.

Now if U.S. wasn't in either yeah the outcomes of both are different as well. Doesn't mean we can't give Russia credit where credit is due.

More on topic:
Why is Ukraine our ally? Pretty obvious and I'm tired of us being allies with countries only for the fact we want more power, well it's been that way since blank, and they want protection. Our allied decisions should be very strategic and our stances with countries should be looked at far more often than they are.

You nailed it regarding WWII. Most people don't understand how critical Russia's involvement was to allies ultimately winning.

Even China was our ally in the Pacific. The Soviet-led invasion of Manchuria with Chinese backing and the eradication of Imperial Japan's most decorated regiment of over 700,000 soldiers--the Kwantung Army--ultimately led to the surrender of Japan. The nukes would have brought things to an end just as quickly in Germany as they did in Japan.

Emperor Hirohito didn't care about people's lives. He expected the Japanese people to die for him. That's why he was largely unphased by the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on August 9th that killed over 175,000 civilian men, women, children, and babies by U.S. Democrat president, Harry Truman. Hirohito was much more concerned with the loss at Manchuria finalized in late August putting Stalin at his doorstep without a strong army left to protect him--to die for him. Japan surrendered in early September 1945.

Ehhh. Japan was facing a homeland invasion anyway. Furthermore, with Germany defeated, millions of Allied troops were to be pulled out out of Europe and redirected toward Japan. One reason Truman dropped the nukes was to avoid having to invade the Japanese home islands, a job that was expected to cost the US over a million casualties.

The reality was having Russia on the Allied side was a tremendous help---but once America was involved---the Allies were always going to win provided Britain held on as a base of operations. Once the industrial might of the US got going, Germany had no chance. The bottom line, it might have taken a little longer, but Germany---its industry bombed to rubble and facing a nuclear armed opponent----was never going to last much past 1945 regardless of what Russia did.

Many experts say what promoted the surrender was the Soviets, not the bombs.

https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/educatio...as%20born.

I know thats what they say---but the knowledge that Russians would probably turn their focus to Machuria had been known from the moment Germany surrendered on May 9th 1945. Japan surrendered on September 2nd 1945....The first nuke was dropped in August 6th. The second nuke was dropped on August 9th---which was also the same day the Russians opened their attack on Japanese forces in Manchuria. So---all these things happened at roughly the same time. Also, its worth noting that the Emperor actually announced the surrender to his nation on August 15th----though the official signing of the surrender document was not done until September 2nd.

That said---it is important to note that the Japanese had been using back door communication with Russia, who was officially neutral in the Pacific---to hopefully negotiate better surrender terms than the "unconditional surrender" the Allies were demanding. Once Russia attacked Manchuria as required under the Yalta agreements---it became clear to Japan that no better deal was likely to be had. So---I do think the Russian attack in a way was certainly a factor---but not because they thought their homeland might fall. They already knew that was likely from the American forces arrayed just off the coast of Japan. It was a factor because it convinced them that their last chance at better surrender terms was now dead. There are a lot of theories out there---but my personal belief is that Japan was ready to surrender before the Russian invasion or the nuke attack---they were just trying to get the best terms possible. The nukes made them realize they were out of time and the Russian attack made them realize no better deal was coming.