Ukraine war: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis invited to visit after remarks

[sneakypete]

Clever move by the Ukrainians. Also, rather than getting nasty and defensive about it, they used respectful phrasing that noted his military experience.  I don't imagine that he'll go, but it's a smart move on their end anyway.

@Maj. Bill Martin

I agree.

[catfish1957]

You didn't answer my question, which tells me that you know nothing.  Just deflecting, like all the other pro-Kremlin appeaseniks.

Silly f'er... You are more pro-Biden than I am pro-Kremlin. 

I've chided Putin 100's of times in the last year for his deeds in Ukraine

But that assumes you had some  level of reading comprehension.  Which I doubt.

[txradioguy]

I'm not sure anyone here has advocated sending U.S. troops to fight in Russia.  The debate is whether we are willing to help arm people who clearly are willing to do the fighting themselves.

There are keyboard commandos…the NAFO #fellas who are pushing for US involvement in Ukraine.

I just keep asking when they are gonna sign up and go fight. 

And quite frankly I’m tired of us giving away front line weapons and munitions with no plan in place to replace our stores of ammo to a country with ZERO accountability for what we are shipping them. 

[art.prout]

There are keyboard commandos…the NAFO #fellas who are pushing for US involvement in Ukraine.

I just keep asking when they are gonna sign up and go fight. 

And quite frankly I’m tired of us giving away front line weapons and munitions with no plan in place to replace our stores of ammo to a country with ZERO accountability for what we are shipping them.

In a sane world, your wise words would be heeded, Sir!

[art.prout]

Silly f'er... You are more pro-Biden than I am pro-Kremlin. 

I've chided Putin 100's of times in the last year for his deeds in Ukraine

But that assumes you had some  level of reading comprehension.  Which I doubt.

I'm not quite sure what you may have expected, engaging with "it."

[Timber Rattler]

@Timber Rattler

ROFLMAO!

He was a freaking Navy lawyer. I doubt he ever heard a shot fired,even in training.

He was attached to SEAL Team 1, and was the dude who had to determine the legality of every mission and targeted kill by those SEALs and authorize each one. 

[Timber Rattler]

Silly f'er... You are more pro-Biden than I am pro-Kremlin. 

I've chided Putin 100's of times in the last year for his deeds in Ukraine

But that assumes you had some  level of reading comprehension.  Which I doubt.

You still never answered my question.

[catfish1957]

There are keyboard commandos…the NAFO #fellas who are pushing for US involvement in Ukraine.

I just keep asking when they are gonna sign up and go fight. 

And quite frankly I’m tired of us giving away front line weapons and munitions with no plan in place to replace our stores of ammo to a country with ZERO accountability for what we are shipping them.

My thoughts too.  Zellinskyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy has no interest in transparency, or accounting of any of the money we sent there.

He's so good at this grift, he doesn't even have to say what he's spending it on.  The fact we have Briefers here defending this shit, is mind blowing.

[Kamaji]

My thoughts too.  Zellinskyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy has no interest in transparency, or accounting of any of the money we sent there.

He's so good at this grift, he doesn't even have to say what he's spending it on.  The fact we have Briefers here defending this shit, is mind blowing.

What money has been “sent there”?

You seem to have this fantasy view that bundles and bundles of unmarked nonsequential hundred dollar bills have been dropped off in Kiev. 

That is not the case.  The funds the US has appropriated have been “spent” by either providing Ukraine with actual weapons, or with cash to US agencies.  Your beef is with the US government, not the head of a country that is fighting for its very survival against a Russian aggressor who seeks to seize the countries that used to live under the yoke of Soviet slavery.

[catfish1957]

You still never answered my question.

What question?  Like how me asking you how you make a living doing. uh.........   "Research"?



The bottom line is the grifter Mr "Z" is taking our tax dollars with no accountibility or even the most elementary of explanations of where the money is going.  Hell even our silly VPOTUS knows what a Venn diagram is.  Is that or a pie chart too f'ing much to ask as the $B's fly out the door?

Sorry..... but after sending the IRS $2M over my lifetime, I might get a little grumpy with this matter, and how that same entity, which BTW is $32T in debt, decides to send said tax dollars to the Ukes, who I heard recently rumoured is also using that same money to fund their state pension plans.  Have you given any thought, of how it might be nice not to put us in addtional debt, or even use that money to secure the border, stop Fentanyl poisonings, etc.?  I am guessing you very likely don't live in a border state do you?

If you can get me a plan in place where weapons get directly in the hands of the Uke army to kill Russians, bypassing the corrupt Uke pols,  I might engage and argue with you on those merits, and I might even support that.  But, guess what....  it appears you prefer the blank check approach.   And that my friend, is just outright insane.

I sure hope you truly aren't this naive, because right now at the surface I hope you realize that you are allies and in alignment with:
(1) Biden, Schumer, and almost all the dims
(2) Fink from Blackrock and the rest of the woke ESG financial crowd
(3) McConnell, Graham, and the rest of the RINO Clown Car. 
(4) and MSM, and Big Tech, for good measure.

So go ahead, and display your Teal and Yellow.  I prefer Red, White, and Blue. And keeping my tax dollars at home for people who need it.

[catfish1957]

What money has been “sent there”?

You seem to have this fantasy view that bundles and bundles of unmarked nonsequential hundred dollar bills have been dropped off in Kiev. 

That is not the case.  The funds the US has appropriated have been “spent” by either providing Ukraine with actual weapons, or with cash to US agencies.  Your beef is with the US government, not the head of a country that is fighting for its very survival against a Russian aggressor who seeks to seize the countries that used to live under the yoke of Soviet slavery.

So this is all phantom money?  Come on.... 

It's all grift and graft.  Without proper paper trails and accounting that I mentioned in the just above post, this has been a stealth operation, where no one outside the federal government will let anyone know how much and exactly how money is being dispersed.

That lack of transparency should scare the hell out of you.   And again, as I said it above post.....   Get me a plan in place where munitions and help are DIRECTLY provided to soliders in the field to kill Russians?  I'll get behind that, but all this fishy wishy mushy fiscal shenanigans right now has to stop.

And I got to ask....   Your premise was "What Money"?  Good question.  It might be Trillions all we know.  That's the point.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And I got to ask....   Your premise was "What Money"?  Good question.  It might be Trillions all we know.  That's the point.

The specific appropriations are all public, and it isn't a trillion.  70% of it is military equipment, and I didn't see Mrs. Z in Paris trying to trade a HIMARS for a diamond necklace.

[catfish1957]

The specific appropriations are all public, and it isn't a trillion.  70% of it is military equipment, and I didn't see Mrs. Z in Paris trying to trade a HIMARS for a diamond necklace.

Thanks Major....
They are? 

I've scoured H.R. 7691, ('21/22)
The recent C.R.

No luck on any level of detail in the congressional record.

There's a NYT article behind a pay wall, that "visualizes" the monies, but it in its brief appearance was only at level 1, with minimal detail.

I did find a CSIS (I hate Congressf'ing think tanks) article that went into minisucle detail as follows:
Congressional aid total : $40B (The 6th aid package)
To the military: $19B
To our military preparedness: Roughly $4B
To NATO allies for preparedness: $2B

AND THE KICKER?:

To general financial aid to Ukraine: $16B

$16B???   And to all who keep supporting this, while we have a balooning $32T deficit balance sheet shortfall?   

F that!!!!!!  And this was just one aid package.

[Kamaji]

The specific appropriations are all public, and it isn't a trillion.  70% of it is military equipment, and I didn't see Mrs. Z in Paris trying to trade a HIMARS for a diamond necklace.

[sneakypete]

There are keyboard commandos…the NAFO #fellas who are pushing for US involvement in Ukraine.

I just keep asking when they are gonna sign up and go fight. 

And quite fr

 
Frankly I’m tired of us giving away front line weapons and munitions with no plan in place to replace our stores of ammo to a country with ZERO accountability for what we are shipping them.

@txradioguy

Who are these posters,and where are they posting here? All *I* have ever seen  are  a couple of "peace at any cost/surrender monkeys."

[sneakypete]

He was attached to SEAL Team 1, and was the dude who had to determine the legality of every mission and targeted kill by those SEALs and authorize each one.

@Timber Rattler

Which means  he never once heard  a shot fired and NEVER went on any missions.

[sneakypete]

Thanks Major....
They are? 

I've scoured H.R. 7691, ('21/22)
The recent C.R.

No luck on any level of detail in the congressional record.

There's a NYT article behind a pay wall, that "visualizes" the monies, but it in its brief appearance was only at level 1, with minimal detail.

I did find a CSIS (I hate Congressf'ing think tanks) article that went into minisucle detail as follows:
Congressional aid total : $40B (The 6th aid package)
To the military: $19B
To our military preparedness: Roughly $4Bca
To NATO allies for preparedness: $2B

AND THE KICKER?:

To general financial aid to Ukraine: $16B

$16B???   And to all who keep supporting this, while we have a balooning $32T deficit balance sheet shortfall?   

F that!!!!!!  And this was just one aid package.

@catfish1957

I am guessing the "general financial  aid" includes thing like money to rebuild infrastructure blown up by the Soviet attacks,repair electrical lines,provide food,clothing,and shelter for homeless refugees,medical care for the same people,and all the dozens of other "tools and aids" that civilian populations need after their homes and surrounding areas have been bombed into powder.

[cato potatoe]

$16B???   And to all who keep supporting this, while we have a balooning $32T deficit balance sheet shortfall?   

F that!!!!!!  And this was just one aid package.

Does the Ukraine own our entire political establishment?  We do not have the resources to police the borders of every country on the planet, while borrowing trillions just to maintain appearances on the home front.  Our financial problems are coming to bear.   

Also, re: territorial disputes ... the semantic argument is tedious.  Any peace deal will involve a redrawn map.  Why would the Russians leave, when they clearly do not trust NATO, and whole point of the invasion was to establish a buffer zone?

[catfish1957]

Does the Ukraine own our entire political establishment?  We do not have the resources to police the borders of every country on the planet, while borrowing trillions just to maintain appearances on the home front.  Our financial problems are coming to bear.   

Also, re: territorial disputes ... the semantic argument is tedious.  Any peace deal will involve a redrawn map.  Why would the Russians leave, when they clearly do not trust NATO, and whole point of the invasion was to establish a buffer zone?

Yep, but I have been way too mean spirited on this matter  Yes, I am passionate on my POV in my wanting to reduce the nation's  financial liabilites, and stop the insane deficit spending.  @roamer_1 and I are probably a few of the true last fiscal hawks left.  And we both realize that a government can not sustain on a limitless credit card and a blank check.   Seeing outlays to Ukraine, when the EU/NATO are not paying an equitable share of the defense/response?   To me, that is dead wrong, and  to saddle the U.S. taxpayer with that is despicable.

My apologies to @Timber Rattler for earlier comments.

[LMAO]

Thanks Major....
They are? 

I've scoured H.R. 7691, ('21/22)
The recent C.R.

No luck on any level of detail in the congressional record.

There's a NYT article behind a pay wall, that "visualizes" the monies, but it in its brief appearance was only at level 1, with minimal detail.

I did find a CSIS (I hate Congressf'ing think tanks) article that went into minisucle detail as follows:
Congressional aid total : $40B (The 6th aid package)
To the military: $19B
To our military preparedness: Roughly $4B
To NATO allies for preparedness: $2B

AND THE KICKER?:

To general financial aid to Ukraine: $16B

$16B???   And to all who keep supporting this, while we have a balooning $32T deficit balance sheet shortfall?   

F that!!!!!!  And this was just one aid package.

I have watched this debate on our involvement in Ukraine, and I think both sides make some good points

But the cost cannot be ignored. And a poster, I don’t remember  who, once asked a question, and she/he never received an answer, what happens if the war starts going badly in a year for Ukraine?

And what happens, as Americans see their standard of living decline, and we start bailing out more banks,if popular opinion rises up against sending a dime to Ukraine?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Also, re: territorial disputes ... the semantic argument is tedious.  Any peace deal will involve a redrawn map.  Why would the Russians leave, when they clearly do not trust NATO, and whole point of the invasion was to establish a buffer zone?

That was their public excuse, not their reason.  And as a reason, it's exactly backwards.  Think about it - Russia is claiming these territories as Russian, which means that if they are successful, the borders of Russia would be even closer to NATO.  They will have shrunk their buffer, not increased it.

This was a just a territory grab from the outset for the purpose of rebuilding a Russian/Soviet Empire.  They figured they'd grab the most heavily industrialized portions of Ukraine, with the most natural resources, and could do it cheaply.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And a poster, I don’t remember  who, once asked a question, and she/he never received an answer, what happens if the war starts going badly in a year for Ukraine? And what happens, as Americans see their standard of living decline, and we start bailing out more banks,if popular opinion rises up against sending a dime to Ukraine?

If it gets to the point in a year where Ukrainian support is significantly impacting our standard of living -- which it isn't yet -- and/or if Ukraine looks like it's starting to collapse, then we obviously we would re-evaluate the wisdom of continuing support at that time.  That seems like a rather obvious response to me, which may be why nobody responded to a question that may have been perceived as just rhetorical.

But judging the wisdom of Ukrainian support now by considering only the worst potential outcomes a year down the road doesn't seem reasonable.  To me, a successful Ukrainian defense of their country has enormous potential benefits to us.  Not just that we did the "right thing" by helping a brave people defend themselves, but because we would have crippled the conventional military of one of our key geopolitical foes.  We would have strengthened massively the NATO alliance, and likely changed the force balance in Europe enough that U.S. forces would not longer be needed there at all.  We also would have the long-term gratitude of a victorious, militarily powerful nation that likely would stand by us if we ever needed their help again.  And we would have sent a very strong message of deterrence to China that we will not sit by idly in the face of naked aggression.

I think the potential benefits are sufficient to justify continued support to Ukraine.  And look, even if it turns out that the defense ultimately was unsuccessful, Russia will emerge much weaker militarily and economically, so we'd still get at least that much benefit out of our support.

[LMAO]

Entitlement reform, while necessary, is going to be a very tough and unpopular sell. It’s going be an even tougher sell while money is being spent on Ukraine

[Timber Rattler]

@Timber Rattler

Which means  he never once heard  a shot fired and NEVER went on any missions.

You don't know that.

[sneakypete]

If it gets to the point in a year where Ukrainian support is significantly impacting our standard of living -- which it isn't yet -- and/or if Ukraine looks like it's starting to collapse, then we obviously we would re-evaluate the wisdom of continuing support at that time.  That seems like a rather obvious response to me, which may be why nobody responded to a question that may have been perceived as just rhetorical.

But judging the wisdom of Ukrainian support now by considering only the worst potential outcomes a year down the road doesn't seem reasonable.  To me, a successful Ukrainian defense of their country has enormous potential benefits to us.  Not just that we did the "right thing" by helping a brave people defend themselves, but because we would have crippled the conventional military of one of our key geopolitical foes.  We would have strengthened massively the NATO alliance, and likely changed the force balance in Europe enough that U.S. forces would not longer be needed there at all.  We also would have the long-term gratitude of a victorious, militarily powerful nation that likely would stand by us if we ever needed their help again.  And we would have sent a very strong message of deterrence to China that we will not sit by idly in the face of naked aggression.

I think the potential benefits are sufficient to justify continued support to Ukraine.  And look, even if it turns out that the defense ultimately was unsuccessful, Russia will emerge much weaker militarily and economically, so we'd still get at least that much benefit out of our support.

@Maj. Bill Martin

But some are surprised the former president is unloading such a heavy barrage before DeSantis is even in the race, and they worry that getting into a year-long mudslinging battle with Trump isn’t good look for the party heading into 2024.   

I suspect that Trump sees this as backstabbing,and unlike DeSantis,Trump is too old to even consider running in 2028.

I STRONGLY supported DeSantis running as Trump's VP,but he looks like a backstabbing little bitch after doing everything possible to do in order to become the nominee instead of Trump,and frankly,as a career politician,he is NOT up to the job of doing the "dirty work" that needs to be done to clean out the traitors in Congress and the Senate.

Trump,on the other hand,has nothing to lose and everything to gain by being in a position to change things. His ONLY  concern would be how he would be written about in the history books. He obviously wants to go down as the "President that saved America from collapse",and to do that,he is going to have to step on more than a few toes. Toes that neither DeSanto or any other Presidential candidate CAN step on because they want to be re-elected.