Not one drop of American blood better be spilled fighting for that retard Zelinsky.

And no more treasure.

Frick him.

(02-28-2025 09:48 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Not one drop of American blood better be spilled fighting for that retard Zelinsky.

And no more treasure.

Frick him.

Exactly. No American troops and no more American taxpayer money! Enough is enough!

(02-28-2025 09:48 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Not one drop of American blood better be spilled fighting for that retard Zelinsky.

And no more treasure.

Frick him.

Zelinsky will be long gone when Americans shed blood in Europe. We’re just seeing the groundwork being laid now.

(02-28-2025 07:07 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 07:01 PM)shere khan Wrote:  ^
Z is fricked.

He did not help his cause. He better kiss alot of European arse.

I seriously doubt he's going to be breathing much longer ... and the CIA won't have to help ... it's either that or he goes into exile ... I don't see how he recovers from this one...

Yelp. The good ole regime change played out like the good ole days. Now that they got rid of the guy who won’t say thank you and sorry they can grab $500,000,000,000 of Ukrainian assets.

Some how that kinda smells worse.

(03-01-2025 02:49 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 09:48 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Not one drop of American blood better be spilled fighting for that retard Zelinsky.

And no more treasure.

Frick him.

Zelinsky will be long gone when Americans shed blood in Europe. We’re just seeing the groundwork being laid now.

And why is that? Russian military is extremely weak, remember?

(03-01-2025 02:49 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 09:48 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Not one drop of American blood better be spilled fighting for that retard Zelinsky.

And no more treasure.

Frick him.

Zelinsky will be long gone when Americans shed blood in Europe. We’re just seeing the groundwork being laid now.

Can you pick football games for me this fall.

Our next war will be China or the EU. Russia is a popcorn fart

(03-01-2025 10:21 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 02:49 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(02-28-2025 09:48 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Not one drop of American blood better be spilled fighting for that retard Zelinsky.

And no more treasure.

Frick him.

Zelinsky will be long gone when Americans shed blood in Europe. We’re just seeing the groundwork being laid now.

Can you pick football games for me this fall.

Our next war will be China or the EU. Russia is a popcorn fart

Exactly. This is a war between two former Soviet republics that would've never started had the Great Steal of 2020 never happened. Also, I found the thread I made in which I said "I stand with Ukraine!" and thought about linking it in my other thread for reference. I also even considered bumping it. I still might. Thank God y'all (especially you and stink) brought me back from the brink shortly after this thing started.

Here’s the problem with a peace deal regarding Ukraine. To negotiate each side must give something to get something. In this case, neither side has anything to give.

500 years of Russian history says there is no way Russia could ever agree to Ukraine joining NATO, or probably not even the EU. So what does Russia have to give in order to get Ukraine to abandon NATO/EU aspirations? Territory? Considering that the areas Russia has taken are majority Russian or Russian-speaking, not likely. And considering that, they would likely be a *itch for Ukraine to administer if they somehow got them back—just like they were before, which has a lot to do with how they got here in the first place.

So how do you negotiate when neither side has anything to offer? And what role can the USA play in bringing about a deal?

Both economies are pretty much flat on their @$$e$. Russia has oil and gas revenues and tries to carry an entire economy on that. And Ukraine has agricultural production (mostly wheat, a lot of which is low quality because of still primitive harvesting methods) but little else. Suppose the USA could offer both promises of significant industrial investment? That would have the additional advantage of placing a lot of Americans in both countries, which would serve as a deterrent to future military action by either. For one thing, significant American development of the rare earth mineral deposits (which I understand are now split between areas controlled by both countries) could prove extremely useful.

I don’t have the answer, but this seems to me to be more likely to work than conventional approaches.

I listened for about ten minutes and then it just became jabber to me.

Bret the squirrel Baier is not a tough interviewer. That interview should have been five minutes tops.

1. It's been three years. Why haven't you won yet?
2. Do you have a plan to win? Why haven't you done it yet? Or are you content with just pushing your people into the meat grinder??
3. Have you even entertained the possibility that you can't win... and maybe better take what you can get???

(03-01-2025 01:26 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I listened for about ten minutes and then it just became jabber to me.
Bret the squirrel Baier is not a tough interviewer. That interview should have been five minutes tops.
1. It's been three years. Why haven't you won yet?
2. Do you have a plan to win? Why haven't you done it yet? Or are you content with just pushing your people into the meat grinder??
3. Have you even entertained the possibility that you can't win... and maybe better take what you can get???

O'Reilly is the best interviewer Fox ever had. And Hannity is the worst. Baier is somewhere in between.

Good choices for the three questions.

(03-01-2025 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:26 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I listened for about ten minutes and then it just became jabber to me.
Bret the squirrel Baier is not a tough interviewer. That interview should have been five minutes tops.
1. It's been three years. Why haven't you won yet?
2. Do you have a plan to win? Why haven't you done it yet? Or are you content with just pushing your people into the meat grinder??
3. Have you even entertained the possibility that you can't win... and maybe better take what you can get???

O'Reilly is the best interviewer Fox ever had. And Hannity is the worst. Baier is somewhere in between.

Good choices for the three questions.

I can't stand Hannity. He talks over all his guests. I agree about O'Reilly.

(03-01-2025 02:00 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:26 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I listened for about ten minutes and then it just became jabber to me.
Bret the squirrel Baier is not a tough interviewer. That interview should have been five minutes tops.
1. It's been three years. Why haven't you won yet?
2. Do you have a plan to win? Why haven't you done it yet? Or are you content with just pushing your people into the meat grinder??
3. Have you even entertained the possibility that you can't win... and maybe better take what you can get???

O'Reilly is the best interviewer Fox ever had. And Hannity is the worst. Baier is somewhere in between.

Good choices for the three questions.

I can't stand Hannity. He talks over all his guests. I agree about O'Reilly.

I think Baier's better than some of y'all think, personally. He asked Kamala difficult questions and she couldn't answer a single one. (Then again, almost every single question Kamala was asked seemed to be a difficult one during the campaign last fall. lol) Even still, he ain't Bill O'Reilly. I miss that guy on Fox News. Yes, I know he's on TheFirst TV, but I wish he was still on Fox News, darn it!

As for Hannity, it's not really that he talks over guests that irritates me about him. It's his dragging out arguments on his radio show with leftist callers that bugs me. I get trying to debate and drive your point home, but some people just can't be helped. I've had to quit listening to him. He's better on TV anyway.

(03-01-2025 02:06 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 02:00 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:26 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I listened for about ten minutes and then it just became jabber to me.
Bret the squirrel Baier is not a tough interviewer. That interview should have been five minutes tops.
1. It's been three years. Why haven't you won yet?
2. Do you have a plan to win? Why haven't you done it yet? Or are you content with just pushing your people into the meat grinder??
3. Have you even entertained the possibility that you can't win... and maybe better take what you can get???

O'Reilly is the best interviewer Fox ever had. And Hannity is the worst. Baier is somewhere in between.

Good choices for the three questions.

I can't stand Hannity. He talks over all his guests. I agree about O'Reilly.

I think Baier's better than some of y'all think, personally. He asked Kamala difficult questions and she couldn't answer a single one. (Then again, almost every single question Kamala was asked seemed to be a difficult one during the campaign last fall. lol) Even still, he ain't Bill O'Reilly. I miss that guy on Fox News. Yes, I know he's on TheFirst TV, but I wish he was still on Fox News, darn it!

As for Hannity, it's not really that he talks over guests that irritates me about him. It's his dragging out arguments on his radio show with leftist callers that bugs me. I get trying to debate and drive your point home, but some people just can't be helped. I've had to quit listening to him. He's better on TV anyway.

I think Baier is decent. I don't listen to talk radio.

(03-01-2025 02:00 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:26 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I listened for about ten minutes and then it just became jabber to me.
Bret the squirrel Baier is not a tough interviewer. That interview should have been five minutes tops.
1. It's been three years. Why haven't you won yet?
2. Do you have a plan to win? Why haven't you done it yet? Or are you content with just pushing your people into the meat grinder??
3. Have you even entertained the possibility that you can't win... and maybe better take what you can get???

O'Reilly is the best interviewer Fox ever had. And Hannity is the worst. Baier is somewhere in between.

Good choices for the three questions.

I can't stand Hannity. He talks over all his guests. I agree about O'Reilly.

I find that he tends to slobber over and worships his guests.
But then I lost patience with him and have rarely watched him.

(03-01-2025 02:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 02:06 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 02:00 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:26 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I listened for about ten minutes and then it just became jabber to me.
Bret the squirrel Baier is not a tough interviewer. That interview should have been five minutes tops.
1. It's been three years. Why haven't you won yet?
2. Do you have a plan to win? Why haven't you done it yet? Or are you content with just pushing your people into the meat grinder??
3. Have you even entertained the possibility that you can't win... and maybe better take what you can get???

O'Reilly is the best interviewer Fox ever had. And Hannity is the worst. Baier is somewhere in between.

Good choices for the three questions.

I can't stand Hannity. He talks over all his guests. I agree about O'Reilly.

I think Baier's better than some of y'all think, personally. He asked Kamala difficult questions and she couldn't answer a single one. (Then again, almost every single question Kamala was asked seemed to be a difficult one during the campaign last fall. lol) Even still, he ain't Bill O'Reilly. I miss that guy on Fox News. Yes, I know he's on TheFirst TV, but I wish he was still on Fox News, darn it!

As for Hannity, it's not really that he talks over guests that irritates me about him. It's his dragging out arguments on his radio show with leftist callers that bugs me. I get trying to debate and drive your point home, but some people just can't be helped. I've had to quit listening to him. He's better on TV anyway.

I think Baier is decent. I don't listen to talk radio.

I don’t listen to talk radio like I used to. Only when I’m out running errands or just driving around.

(03-01-2025 01:26 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I listened for about ten minutes and then it just became jabber to me.

Bret the squirrel Baier is not a tough interviewer. That interview should have been five minutes tops.

1. It's been three years. Why haven't you won yet?
2. Do you have a plan to win? Why haven't you done it yet? Or are you content with just pushing your people into the meat grinder??
3. Have you even entertained the possibility that you can't win... and maybe better take what you can get???

I keep hearing this discussion and I think we need to define what winning actually means for a nation fighting off an invasion. In a defensive war---isnt just surviving "winning"? Its not like N Vietnam captured Washington DC. Afghanistan beat the Russians back in the day. Never captured Moscow as far as I know. Israel never took Damascus or Cairo. Same with S Korea in the 50's. They just all survived---and that WAS "winning".

That said---this is now largely a stalemate---and I would think it makes sense for both sides to come to a settlement. If Trump wants to get Russia to the table----its not likely to happen if Putin see's Trump cut off the weapons/ammo supply to Ukraine. Thats just going to make Putin think he's better off dragging his feet in negotiations as he now has a chance to make real gains on the battlefield. While Z was by far the biggest loser on Friday---its not like Trump moved any closer to his stated goals of a negotiated peace, getting US access to additional REM supplies, or making sure the American tax payer gets paid back for its aid to Ukraine. Its ultimately in both Trump and Z's interest to patch things up and get the deal done---which is why Ive always believed it will ultimately end up getting signed.

(03-01-2025 04:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2025 01:26 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I listened for about ten minutes and then it just became jabber to me.

Bret the squirrel Baier is not a tough interviewer. That interview should have been five minutes tops.

1. It's been three years. Why haven't you won yet?
2. Do you have a plan to win? Why haven't you done it yet? Or are you content with just pushing your people into the meat grinder??
3. Have you even entertained the possibility that you can't win... and maybe better take what you can get???

I keep hearing this discussion and I think we need to define what winning actually means when your fighting off an invasion. In a defensive war---isnt surviving "winning"? Its not like N Vietnam captured Washington DC. Afghanistan beat the Russians back in the day. Never captured Moscow as far as I know.

That said---this is now largely a stalemate---and I would think it makes sense for both sides to come to a settlement. If Trump wants to get Russia to the table----its not likely to happen if Putin see's Trump cut off the weapons/ammo supply to Ukraine. Thats just going to make Putin think he's better off dragging his feet in negotiations as he now has a chance to make real gains on the battlefield. While Z was by far the biggest loser on Friday---its not like Trump moved any closer to his stated goals of a negotiated peace, getting US access to additional REM supplies, or making sure the American tax payer gets paid back for its aid to Ukraine. Its ultimately in both Trump and Z's interest to patch things up and get the deal done---which is why Ive always believed it will ultimately end up getting signed.

Exactly. Everybody lost. Including the Russian people.