Musk helping an enemy state kill innocent civilians.
- Thread starter Rastafarian
- Start date
not sure that's really an accurate thread topic. Sound like the link was slowed down on Ukranian "attacking drones".
Unless you meant stopping Ukranians from killing russians
Last edited:
Would anyone be surprised if Ned was a Russian bot?
Traitors - 2
America - 0
It’s amazing how many people have turned their back on this country and its people.
I would!!! Just trying to make sure your concern is properly stated. You wouldn't want to give us the wrong impression.....would you?
So, just from a curiosity perspective, what would you have the US do? remember, we've complained about our weapon inventory, so giving Ukranians our limited stock, doesn't make much sense. We could give them money, but we've talked about decreasing our defense budget, and Oh, we're 40 trillion in debt..and we've complained about that. Want to get our peacemaker president involved..well isn't he?
in your opinion, what's the end game in Ukraine/Russia? Do you think there's the possibility of Ukraine regaining the ground the Russians are currently standing on? Are you satisfied with the number of people - both military and civilian being killed on both sides? Want us to send ground troops? Who's going to pay to rebuild Ukraine...oh we're 40 trillion in debt. How about TPS for Ukranians...couldn't do that they're white.
So what's your solution?
Is yours to let Putin wage a war of conquest across Eastern Europe?
well Flaw, you've done it again...you answered my question with a totally unrelated question.
But, I'll bite, should we go to a full NATO-Russia war to prevent Russia from taking territory in Ukraine? your turn
If that's what it takes, yes.
I'm not sure how my question was unrelated at all. You seemed to be suggesting that any country should be able to conquer any other county whose allies have a national debt.
So either musk or Trump disrupted a Ukrainian attack on Russia.
Remember when MAGAts pretended to be America first and wanted to take a hard line stance against our enemies?
funny how we always cozy up to Russia right before an election…..
Remember when MAGAts pretended to be America first and wanted to take a hard line stance against our enemies?
funny how we always cozy up to Russia right before an election…..
The way his posts are written, I said that after the first couple post that I read.
But man are those Libs owned or what?
first of all, we do not have any signed alliance with Ukraine. So in reality we are not allies. Most Americans would have no idea where the Ukraine is even located on a map. So are we required to provide military support, including ground troops, for every country in the world? Why are we obligated to support Ukraine, just because they are fighting Russia?
I have to admit, I'm a little surprised that you would commit ground troops to fight Russians in Ukraine. Aren't you one of the people who are against trump committing the US to forever wars? Don't you want the US to end the war with Iran? Sending ground troops to Ukraine would, in effect, be starting world war III.
I'm really amazed that the same folks who blast trump about "forever wars" and want the US out of Iran are proposing US involvement in a war in Ukraine. @FLaw47 is even willing to provide ground troops.
Why?
Seems to me that some of you might be in some "double speak" end one war start WWIII
This is a baffling narrow definition of the word "ally" and I don't think is a useful distinction to make. We have been providing them support in this war.
Not every country in the world, no. We're got a "pile of sand" situation here but where we draw the line is so far away that I can't see it. They were invaded by a country that is hostile to us, in violation of memorandums that Russia had agreed to. Ukraine is a friendly western democracy that borders some people that even you will be forced to admit are "allies". I do not believe in wars of conquest. I do not believe in might makes right. We've had a relatively stable world order since WWII and I'd like to keep it that way.
I said "if that's what it takes". I really doubt it'd take troops on the ground with how poorly Russia has acquitted itself in an engagement with what was thought to be a much less capable military.
Ned, I really need you to try harder. Just because I support one war effort means I support all war efforts? That's absolutely non-sensical. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but has Iran invaded any friendly nations or did we start that war?
Maybe. If you take things to one particularly uncharitable logical conclusion I can see that. The other logical conclusion is that we allow Putin to take over Europe one country at a time.
Because we gave them security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum for one and we've seen over the last century what happens when we allow an aggressor nation to go unchecked against other Democratic allies. It eventually comes to our shores so better to stop them where they are before they're bold enough to attack NATO countries where our troops would be required. And I'd argue with your characterization that they aren't allies as they contributed troops to several US and NATO led operations. It's weird that you don't understand why we need Ukraine to win. You should know better.
but you didn't answer the question why??
do you think Ukraince can win???
what gives you that opinion? Do you agree with @FLaw47 that the US should commit ground troops if that's what it takes for ukraine to win?
How much more are you prepared to give Ukraine?
Ned, I'd just like to ask; let's say that we pull out from Ukraine and they get taken over by Russia. What do you think happens next?
By my reckoning, these are NATO countries bordering Ukraine:
- Poland
- Slovokia
- Romania
- Hungary
Do you think Ukraine is the only thing that Putin always wanted and could never have?
What if Russia invaded Canada? Oh wait, they're our allies according to your definition. What if someone invaded Mexico? We can't help them, we're running a deficit.
What happened the last time an expansionist European power took over a country in Europe while their allies stood by, saying it wasn't their problem? Do you have a picture of Neville Chamberlain on your wall right below Jesus and beside Mary?
Yes I do with the right amount of support. Russia is on their back foot already and we(NATO) should be supplying Ukraine with all the weaponry and resources they need until they can bring them to heel. The pause or slowdown that Trump is enabling is the last thing they need right now when we should be assisting them in every way possible for the kill shot.
As far as troops on the ground, all I'll say is it's frustrating as hell watching innocent civilians get slaughtered every night knowing that NATO could put an end to this war in a week if they wanted to. So there is a part of me that would love to see us declare war on Russia to put an end to this humanitarian disaster, once and for all. And yes I do understand the risks.
You were right Ned. According to Musk, it's actually Trump who limited their access to Starfield.
Sorry, I don't have any answers to your hypotheticals that you would accept. I see the Ukraine was as a no win for both sides. I don't think Ukraine can win without massive support from either the US or NATO nations. I also don't think Russia will stand any chance against a combined NATO force unless it does a three front war with N Korea and China as allies.
I have no idea of the nuances of any peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. And, I guess they'll continue killing each other until there's nothing left standing and the remaining pocket of survivor will come to a debt laden world for financing to rebuild. But I take it from comments that fact - financing and debt - don't carry much away with many of you.
What if Putin invaded Canada. They're a member of NATO. Not by my definition. What if Russia invade Mexico...really...don't we have something called the Monroe doctrine?
I don't see Russia taking all of Ukraine...that's my opinion. But I don't know what's in putin's mind. I personally think Trump is tired of the war and is also tired of Zalensky constantly asking for more and more and more support. So far NATO nations are picking up the slack, but remember only some of them actually put into their defense budgets what's expected. So there's a limit to how long and how much they's support. It's not a good position to be in when you are dependent on other nations to finance your war.
You're prepared to send in ground troops "if that's what it takes"....I personally think that would be a big mistake. But you're entitled to your opinion. You bring up the second world war. Remember Hitler was able to take Europe one country at a time...He didn't face a force of 32 countries all engaging simultaneously, likely on 3 fronts.
You're all in on the US support of Ukraine. I'm not. I don't see either side winning a kinetic war, unless Ukraine runs out of people or money or support. I thought you were an opponent of forever wars....but maybe I'm interpreting that feeling for all wars other than trump wars.
I think zalensky will ultimately end up giving up some territory,,or allowing people in that territory to vote to stay Ukranian or become Russian. You don't agree..that's OK...so if you're in a position of influence, you continue the fight and I'll try to find a acceptable deal where we could end the fighting and both sides can declare victory.
Ok, I feel like this was the only point worth responding to here. How is that different than what Putin is doing? Are you saying it'll actually be different if he takes Ukraine and then decides to invade a NATO country? Do you think Trump is going to stand up to Putin if Poland is invaded? Are you suddenly going to stop caring about our deficit and say we should honor Article 5? From my vantage point, what Putin is doing is exactly how Hitler started WWII (he's just worse at it). That doesn't mean it's for sure going to go to a continental conquest but I don't think our actions to this point are really signaling to Putin that we've got the stomach to stop a war of conquest from him.
And what do you think should happen in Ukraine, exactly? If everyone pulls out their support, you think an acceptable outcome is that Russia is allowed to annex Ukraine whose only crime, so far as I can tell, is having the gall to exist in close proximity to Russia?
well you might see this differently than I do...Ukraine sits on the southwest border of Russia, and how we got here, in part, was the rumbling about NATP inviting the Ukraine to be a member. What I said was that Hitler took one country at a time...if Russia invaded a NATO nation it is 99% certain that article 5 would be invoked. We are part of NATO....and this (art 5) is exactly why we should be getting our debt in order...the high debt puts us in a difficult position economically....when articl 5 is invoked Putin would face war on at least 3 fronts. I don't think russia could handle that...you apparently disagree, I hope we never have to find out.
Here's what I think about Ukraine...and my opinion isn't necessarily any better or worse than yours....I don't think Ukraine can win a long war with Russia....they are dependent on the US and NATO for critical weapons...like it or not Trump will be President for 2 more years, and even if he croaked tomorrow, I have no feeling Vance would change the current "position" (no matter what that is). For sure Trump is backing away from US support, and as I posted appears to be putting his finger on the scale in favor of Russia. I think Trump, who has a short attention span is done with this war, and without some movement might even walk away from his "peacemaker in chief "role. I also think these uprisings in Europe might have an effect on Europe's support in the future. They are in debt as well, and it's going to cost a bundle to rebuild what has been destroyed by the recent "protests". At some point Ukraine is going to come to a deal with Russia, IMO..
Now just so you understand my feelings....not my knowledge, my feelings...
Trump's foreign policy is all over the place and I'm not sure even he knows how to get to where he wants to go, or even if he knows where he wants to go. The Iran thing is a debacle, caused, IMO, but Trump's vascillations and lack of will to do what is needed to win a war. As a result we have the high fuel/grocery prices, high interest rates, inflation housing...you name it....Trump is a master of chaos, and right now is floundering in the chaos of his own making...just my opinion
By the way, his domestic policies are not working either
I'm not convinced that this administration would honor Article 5, nor am I convinced that many of the "America First" people on this board would want to honor it. I don't know where you get the idea that I think Putin could handle fighting all of NATO, it should be obvious that I don't think that from me saying that I don't even think it would take boots on the ground to stop him in Ukraine. What I do think is a concern is Putin taking over countries one at a time while everyone sits on their hands saying "not my problem" or "we are running a deficit (which is basically every country)". The "we have a deficit" argument can be applied to literally any affirmative thing we want to do, domestically or internationally, and honestly feels like a cop out. I'd wager we've lost more in GDP growth due to the war than it would have cost us to just have supported Ukraine and put the situation to bed.
Well I'm glad to see you acknowledge that stuff isn't working. I think you should also explore your thoughts on this a little deeper and see if that means Russia should be able to annex whatever other weaker non-NATO countries they feel like. Or if we should stand by if the entirety of the Islamic Middle East decides they've had enough of Israel and just takes them out. Or if the United Kingdom decided they didn't like have an EU nation on their borders and annexed the Republic of Ireland.
If you think that the USA would have an obligation to stop any of those conquests, I'd love to understand what the difference is.
I generally think sticking to our current commitments, particularly when those commitments are supporting an active war where an ally is being invaded and attacked by an enemy, feels like a good place to start, right? Like this one really isn't that complicated. Reports are that we stopped giving them intelligence that allows them to better defend themselves, while also throttling their communication with their own drones? While also calling for them to get rid of the president leading them through this? Like, its pretty clear that Trump has just fully decided to throw in with one of our largest enemies, who is actively helping the country we are actually in direct conflict with in fact.
Like, this one isn't hard Ned. You don't have to actively make excuses for everything the Trump admin does just because you think certain people on the left overreact.
We do actually have a Bilateral Security Agreement. Not that Trump cares about anything he didn't personally sign within the past year.
About a month ago a number of posters on this board told us that Russia was on it's last leg and Ukraine would win the war. What happened to that prediction? Biden said "as much as it takes for as long as it takes". That never seemed like a viable strategy to me. The good news (if you can call it that) is that Trump slowed/stopped funding and European nations are picking up the slack. That's how it should have been from the start.
Something that's misreported IMO is the impact of the Ukraine war on fertilizer and even oil prices. Dems and the media blame it on the Iran war which is a fair but incomplete analysis. They also blame fertilizer prices on tariffs but those were dropped last year.
Saw this .jpg the other day and laughed. Also, like a third of all fertilizer is transported through the SOH, that's primarily why it has increased even after the tariffs were dropped in Nov of last year.
I opposed the Iran war and I don't deny the impact of the Iran war. That said one of the reasons for the decline in Russian diesel exports is Ukraine's sustained campaign of strikes on the country's refineries which take crude oil and turn it into diesel. Now add the sanctions.Saw this .jpg the other day and laughed. Also, like a third of all fertilizer is transported through the SOH, that's primarily why it has increased even after the tariffs were dropped in Nov of last year.
I try to be objective. Most board libs blame 100% of everything on Trump. You're going to believe what you want to believe.
In what way does this sort of comment contribute to the discourse, seriously? You didn't even mention any one who is commenting on this so there's not even an opportunity to say "my bad, I'm not a foremost military expert".
Biden had the right idea. Sure Europe should and could have been doing more but to act like we don't personally benefit from a stable world order is just absurd.
lol, Russia is sanctioned from selling diesel on global markets because of their invasion of Ukraine. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRESIDENT IS UPENDING ALL THE PIECES ON THE TABLE IN FAVOR OF RUSSIA RIGHT NOW?
its so stupid to blame Ukraine, so so stupid.
Also, Russia is helping Iran. In what world is any of this ok with anyone?
I think it's silly to think the Ukraine strikes on Russian diesel exports didn't negatively impact prices, but considering pretty much everyone not named India and China stopped buying Russian oil after they invaded Ukraine, I don't think the Ukrainian drone strikes have really impacted the price of diesel at a considerable level. You can see in the graph that the start of the Russia-Ukraine war negatively impacted the cost of oil, but it really seemed to almost plateau after about a year or two. Ukraine's been drone striking refineries for 2 years, but it never dramatically impacted the price of oil.
You're not being objective if you're blaming Zelensky for high diesel prices so that Trump isn't held fully responsible, even though he's far and away the number one cause.
"Ukraine’s crippling strikes on Russian oil refineries do not appear to have impacted diesel prices in the United States, an analysis by the Institute of the Study of War found.
Diesel fuel in the US remained steadily under $4 a gallon from August 2025 until just after the Trump administration and Israel launched a joint Feb. 28 attack on Iran, prompting the Islamic Republic to shutter the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route, according to a new chart from the ISW, a policy research organization focused on U.S. national security.
At its peak, when Ukraine struck six oil refineries in a matter of days in November 2025, US diesel prices actually initially dropped slightly, the chart shows.
Prices in the US started rising steeply this February, coinciding with the start of the Iran war, and reached a whopping high of $6.53 per gallon on Sept. 21, according to the data.
The analysis comes amid mounting tensions between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky over a US purchase agreement of more than 2.25 million barrels of diesel from Russia to combat skyrocketing gas prices.
Trump then urged Kyiv to stop targeting Moscow’s oil refineries — and blamed the rising costs of fuel on Ukraine’s targeted attacks.
Zelensky warned Thursday that Ukraine would ignore Trump’s demands and resume strikes on Russian refineries, which the Ukrainian leader has long defended as a means to cut into Moscow’s war chest."
https://nypost.com/2026/10/16/world...neries-is-not-impacting-us-gas-prices-report/
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated Football
Dabo Swinney’s developmental program vs. filling the gaps through the portal
-
02
On3 Football
Bowl games hit the iceberg: How many survive CFP's expansion to 24 teams?
-
03
Tiger Illustrated Football Recruiting
Wednesday Clemson Football Recruiting Nuggets
-
04
Tiger Illustrated Football
WEDNESDAY CLEMSON FOOTBALL INTERVIEWS: Chad Morris, Jay Haynes & Nolan Hauser
-
05
Tiger Illustrated Football Recruiting
Four-star running back seeks out Clemson for visit