The Pentagon wants to arm Ukraine in order to deter Russia

1stSgt Nelson Kerr

Nelson I know you're rearing for a war, but I for one like my life and would like to come back from the military and see my family has not been entirely obliterated by nuclear warheads.

Forgive me for being blunt Nelson, like I know you are a elder, but what time period did you serve in cause like interceptor missiles have been around long time, and your telling me you've never been told they can take down a ICBM with a nuclear warhead?

Also have you ever heard of the ABMT treaty that was created in 1972 that limited BOTH countries from putting Anti Ballistic Missiles in a one country ring around the Soviet Union that US withdrew from back during 2002?

No a better way to avoid a proxy war would be to actually live up to what we fucking say. You said that the game theory I gave was only good in theory not in practice, but if we actually show values and stop with the "Interest" bullshit, then maybe we could get somewhere with stopping WW3 before it's even begun.

Remember how WW1 was started? Someone forgot to tell the German Ambassador that they would not annex Serbia if they went to war, in which that was ALL Russia was trying to prevent. Everyone had INTEREST in starting a war, no had VALUES to stop it.

MAJ James Woods

You're right they do have the right to own weapons of their own choice, but thing is like I've stated to Nelson, we create a treaty with the Soviet Union back during 1972. To deescalate the cold war further. We only just recently pulled out of this treaty back during 2002. Why?

It is more like us invading Iraq rather than Iraq invading Kuwait. Keep it relative. Big superpower invades 3rd world shit hole. (Granted Ukraine is alittle bit better than a 3rd world country, but by only slight margins.)

So let me ask you this, if US was to invade Syria (Without Russian support on the Syrian side) and was going into remove him from power because he's using chemical weapons against the civilians or he has WMD's, etc etc. We go in and we find nothing, do you think that we should be granted immunity from making a bad call. Literally crying wolf when no wolf was around but our self.

Okay hypothetical situation, if the Russians were to stop their "aggression" against Ukraine, and was to sell them S-400's for their protection would you have any ill ideas about that?


NOTE: Before people start accusing me of being a Russian spy, or a Russian supporter, I am merely just wanting people to admit that we have as much involvement in these situations as the country we are demonizing. I just want people to be able to admit when their country is at fault as well. For if your country is so perfect it won't be long until it collapses for it is a house of cards.

The invasion of geographic have nothing at all to do with Thad misses where I'd you get that silly idea from. And hitoric ally letting vile scum like Putin run unchecked in eastern Europe has be a prime cause of wars. The last two world wars provide great examples of that. The annect dote to quote is silliness.. the Hapsburgrs were rightfully posse at Serbia and overreacked. Russia then back Seba and the alliances took over. Nicolas I and the Kaiser were the decion makers there.

Austin Hocutt - Quick history lesson for you. Iraq invaded Kuwait with the public statement that before Kuwait became a nation, that land originally belonged to Iraq. Fast forward to Russia, they're public statement is Crimea was once part of Russia and has many Russians there and the Ukrainian government has no right to Crimea. Our invasion of Iraq on false statements of WMDs and Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda. So no, your statement is incorrect. Again Russia doesn't want Ukraine, they just want the rich in oil Crimea region; they don't care about Ukraine other than de-stabilizing another western democracy style government.
Any treaty with Soviet Union went null and void when it collapsed in the 80s; new treaties and policies were replacing those treaties with the new Federation of Russia. That's what happens with regime change. Oh and who was president of Russia in 2002 and wanted nuclear proliferation like the good ole days of the Cold War? It was Vladimir Putin.
We do not refer to our missile defense systems that intercept conventional and nuclear ICBMs as anti-nuclear weapons. That's what 1stSgt Nelson Kerr was alluding to; there is no such thing as 'anti-nuclear' weapons.
Finally, the only reason we didn't invade Syria was because of Russia and Iran support for the country and lack of support from NATO for a regime change. We didn't need another Iraq 2003 where we did not have multi-lateral support from other countries cause they knew the de-stabilization and rise of Syria and Iran would've happened.
Our country isn't perfect, no country is perfect but don't get offended when someone criticizes terms and facts you post.

I'm far from offended MAJ James Woods.

Well problem is Major, now in today's modern world. You can't discern political facts from either side of the story because all the news outlets you could get from, generally have manipulated one or more portion of the story to fit it their way. Like if US was to do a retaliatory strike against Russia, because Russia did the first strike, Russia would portray themselves as the victim, same with vise versa.

And Kuwait did belong to Iraq at a point in time, this was before and during WW2. Though they were more or less going for the oil fields. Like Russia, Crimea has little to do with Oil fields and has more to do with the Sevastopol ports. Just due to it being a major portion of the black sea fleets resupply chain.

I thank you for being a person who can admit that our country is not perfect, far from it. though I will agree to this statement. We are currently closer to perfect than most other countries just because of our constitution.