Russia invades Ukraine

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
4,334
2,086
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
This might push Putin over the edge

https://twitter.com/business/status/1577558466436243456?t=3szyHtTEmL26y7-O_Nt93w&s=19
And for those who are so anti-Biden they are pro-Russia, this is why you HAVE to support Ukraine financially. How do you not understand the consequences of letting Ukraine fall to Russia? Like... seriously. How do you function as a human? I'm no democrat and I'm anti-war. But we can't just sit back and do nothing. The geopolitical fallout alone would be devastate generations. Don't you care about your kids and their kids?

You have to understand what's at stake. You just have to.
 
Last edited:

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
40,299
11,032
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
And for those who are so anti-Biden they are pro-Russia, this is why you HAVE to support Ukraine financially. How do you not understand the consequences of letting Ukraine fall to Russia? Like... seriously. How do you function as a human? I'm no democrat and I'm anti-war. But we can't just sit back and do nothing. The geopolitical fallout alone would be devastate generations. Don't you care about your kids and their kids?

You have to understand what's at stake. You just have to.
Nope..they get messages like this from their political heros

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1577323035421540353?t=zYwUOgi4x_XnlFuDtzVhtw&s=19
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,811
1,936
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
OPEC has consistently missed their targets lately. Turns out shutting down the world has consequences years down the line. Also, global inflation is eating into demand for energy, OPEC is trying to keep prices propped up.

Lastly, Putin isn't making anyone 'take it on the chin'. He's desperate. His country, government, and economy are all on the verge of collapse.
But Scott Ritter says Russia is ready to win the war in Ukraine. Russia will soon throw 300,000 soldiers in the war. They are well trained and willing. Odessa could still fall.

 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,327
17,523
1,743
Tulsa, OK
Nope..they get messages like this from their political heros

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1577323035421540353?t=zYwUOgi4x_XnlFuDtzVhtw&s=19
If we were a country who cared about deficits, debt and working within a budget, this would be a viable argument. But since we all know that DC will just throw money at every problem no matter how far in debt we are, it is a stupid and pointless argument, both can be done at the same time.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,327
17,523
1,743
Tulsa, OK
I'm curious. There are a lot of people in this forum who identify as libertarian, but sending money to Ukraine is the kind of thing the party has opposed in the past. Does anybody know what prominent people within the party are saying about this? Or has the party itself released any official statement?

I did a quick search but the most recent thing I found was from March where the party seemed to be against sanctions on Russia as it hurt the Russian people who are against the war.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that most of the Republicans who oppose sending aid are doing so completely for political reasons and would flip in a heartbeat if there were a Republican in the WH. But there are an awful lot of self proclaimed libertarians on this board obviously strongly against this line of thought.

It makes for interesting debate. I consider myself a libertarian but there are some things where I have strongly disagreed with the party and foreign policy/intervention is one of those areas. For example, I fully support the sanctions. Anyway, don't want to hijack the thread, just curious on people's thoughts.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,301
21,245
1,743
I'm curious. There are a lot of people in this forum who identify as libertarian, but sending money to Ukraine is the kind of thing the party has opposed in the past. Does anybody know what prominent people within the party are saying about this? Or has the party itself released any official statement?

I did a quick search but the most recent thing I found was from March where the party seemed to be against sanctions on Russia as it hurt the Russian people who are against the war.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that most of the Republicans who oppose sending aid are doing so completely for political reasons and would flip in a heartbeat if there were a Republican in the WH. But there are an awful lot of self proclaimed libertarians on this board obviously strongly against this line of thought.

It makes for interesting debate. I consider myself a libertarian but there are some things where I have strongly disagreed with the party and foreign policy/intervention is one of those areas. For example, I fully support the sanctions. Anyway, don't want to hijack the thread, just curious on people's thoughts.
Libertarians, by their nature, aren't particularly party followers....even the libertarian party.

Furthermore, if you take absolutist Libertarian principles and boil down to the end results, a lot of people consider that a bridge too far. See: governmental regulation of business, borders, foreign intervention, etc.

Absolutist libertarian principles would result in no regulation of business (who would be free to discriminate on whatever basis they chose to do so, pollute to their hearts content, and commit fraud or mislead consumers because caveat emptor), truly completely open borders, complete isolationism (economic and military), etc.

I'm still a registered Libertarian in Oklahoma, but I don't hold absolutist views of Libertarianism.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
16,815
6,053
1,743
Katy, TX
I'm curious. There are a lot of people in this forum who identify as libertarian, but sending money to Ukraine is the kind of thing the party has opposed in the past. Does anybody know what prominent people within the party are saying about this? Or has the party itself released any official statement?

I did a quick search but the most recent thing I found was from March where the party seemed to be against sanctions on Russia as it hurt the Russian people who are against the war.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that most of the Republicans who oppose sending aid are doing so completely for political reasons and would flip in a heartbeat if there were a Republican in the WH. But there are an awful lot of self proclaimed libertarians on this board obviously strongly against this line of thought.

It makes for interesting debate. I consider myself a libertarian but there are some things where I have strongly disagreed with the party and foreign policy/intervention is one of those areas. For example, I fully support the sanctions. Anyway, don't want to hijack the thread, just curious on people's thoughts.
Not sure how/if it changes Libertarian perspective on the assistance to Ukraine but the material we are providing is under the Ukraine Democracy Lend/Lease Act.
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
14,074
7,462
1,743
Landlocked
I'm curious. There are a lot of people in this forum who identify as libertarian, but sending money to Ukraine is the kind of thing the party has opposed in the past. Does anybody know what prominent people within the party are saying about this? Or has the party itself released any official statement?

I did a quick search but the most recent thing I found was from March where the party seemed to be against sanctions on Russia as it hurt the Russian people who are against the war.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that most of the Republicans who oppose sending aid are doing so completely for political reasons and would flip in a heartbeat if there were a Republican in the WH. But there are an awful lot of self proclaimed libertarians on this board obviously strongly against this line of thought.

It makes for interesting debate. I consider myself a libertarian but there are some things where I have strongly disagreed with the party and foreign policy/intervention is one of those areas. For example, I fully support the sanctions. Anyway, don't want to hijack the thread, just curious on people's thoughts.
I'm conflicted on this issue, because I'm not 100% confident in any one political philosophy. I like the general idea of libertarian philosophy (so I call myself "libertarian"), but have never been able to take it to its most extremes. I view it as a general direction, and not a hard-line set of ideals. It informs my positions, and seems like a generally good concept.

In this particular case, it seems right to help Ukraine, even if it generally goes against non-interventionist policy. For that reason, I would say that I support a "less interventionist" policy, because there are times where the ONLY correct response is to take action. There are other times where I view our (the U.S.) action as meddling, and do not support intervention. I haven't figured out what criteria define "correct" versus "meddling", but I'm ok with that for now.
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
4,334
2,086
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
I'm curious. There are a lot of people in this forum who identify as libertarian, but sending money to Ukraine is the kind of thing the party has opposed in the past. Does anybody know what prominent people within the party are saying about this? Or has the party itself released any official statement?

I did a quick search but the most recent thing I found was from March where the party seemed to be against sanctions on Russia as it hurt the Russian people who are against the war.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that most of the Republicans who oppose sending aid are doing so completely for political reasons and would flip in a heartbeat if there were a Republican in the WH. But there are an awful lot of self proclaimed libertarians on this board obviously strongly against this line of thought.

It makes for interesting debate. I consider myself a libertarian but there are some things where I have strongly disagreed with the party and foreign policy/intervention is one of those areas. For example, I fully support the sanctions. Anyway, don't want to hijack the thread, just curious on people's thoughts.
I hold a lot of libertarian viewpoints, but those tend to go out the window when nuclear states invade their neighbors. I think the line Biden has taken is absolutely perfect - and before I'm accused of being a Democrat again, it's the EXACT SAME line Reagan took with Afghanistan: we send money and weapons but no troops. While our goal in the 80's was simply to contain the USSR's spread of communism on a general basis, todays conflict is much more specific. We simply cannot allow Russia to over-run Ukraine. Not for any expansion of land or power like in the 80's, but because it could lead to a multi-polar nuclear armed world. If I'm Lithuania or Poland and I see Russia invading my non-nuclear neighbors, guess what I'm going to do?

Unless we want to see decades of disarmament progress go down the drain, the world needs to know that nukes aren't needed to solve your problems. If Ukraine falls, everyone is going to be scrambling for 15MT weapons. I honestly think we've forgotten the danger that poses to our species. We did so good in the post-soviet union world on lowering the risk for Armageddon that people don't understand the sword of Damocles still hangs directly above our head.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
40,299
11,032
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
I hold a lot of libertarian viewpoints, but those tend to go out the window when nuclear states invade their neighbors. I think the line Biden has taken is absolutely perfect - and before I'm accused of being a Democrat again, it's the EXACT SAME line Reagan took with Afghanistan: we send money and weapons but no troops. While our goal in the 80's was simply to contain the USSR's spread of communism on a general basis, todays conflict is much more specific. We simply cannot allow Russia to over-run Ukraine. Not for any expansion of land or power like in the 80's, but because it could lead to a multi-polar nuclear armed world. If I'm Lithuania or Poland and I see Russia invading my non-nuclear neighbors, guess what I'm going to do?

Unless we want to see decades of disarmament progress go down the drain, the world needs to know that nukes aren't needed to solve your problems. If Ukraine falls, everyone is going to be scrambling for 15MT weapons. I honestly think we've forgotten the danger that poses to our species. We did so good in the post-soviet union world on lowering the risk for Armageddon that people don't understand the sword of Damocles still hangs directly above our head.
excellent Post
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
9,546
3,962
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
I’m a peacenik that sees no point to war. I have good friends that are Russian and Ukrainian. Furthermore, this is all pointless.
I picked the side that didn’t spillover a border and attack a sovereign nation for no justifiable reason. I pick the side that isn’t sending missles into civilian areas in a terror campaign. I pick the side that isn’t murdering opposition. I pick the side that isn’t suppressing free speech with murder or imprisonment. Come on, you are better than “Syrian girl” twitter level conspiracy theories.
No idea what Syrian girl is, the civilians and soldiers on both sides are good people and have done nothing to deserve this. This is solely the actions of the Russian Government and NATO. We belong to NATO. Pretty big player in it too.

I posted a video after the Orange Revolution that we helped foster of McCain and Graham telling Ukrainian soldiers we are going to do all we can to help them kill Russians.

In 2014!!!!

We are part of this and have been for some time.

Russia asked for a piece of paper guaranteeing no more NATO eastward expansion in January.
Just look up what the Biden administration said to that.

Literally. A. Piece. Of. Paper.

You and I have drastically opposing views on mankind and how to stop bloodshed at all costs.
Wow. Just... wow.

So much to break down with this, but I'll focus on one thing and hope (but won't expect) an answer:



What do you mean "your"? Why wouldn't you say "our"?
Biden. “There will no longer be a Nordstream II, we will bring an end to it. “

Reporter. “How will you do that?” (It’s under German control”

Biden. “ I promise you, we’ll be able to do it”

Or even better. Let’s play along.

I have a product to sell to you. You need it. Why would I destroy the means of getting my product to you? Especially when everyone has to pay in rubles. And I can use it to wield political control.

Or

The Russians just really love American energy companies and decided to give us the greatest opportunity since WWII to dominate European energy. That must be it.

Afghanistan literally happened. That wasn’t a bad dream.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
9,546
3,962
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
Wow. Just... wow.

So much to break down with this, but I'll focus on one thing and hope (but won't expect) an answer:



What do you mean "your"? Why wouldn't you say "our"?
Reading comprehension is my friend. Misread first time. I say your because if I say our, it reads like I consent to any of this. I do not. Plus, my response was directly to @ramases2112