Forum List | Politics Forum
Start Previous [ 1 ] -- 2 -- 3 -- Next End| Topic: Aid to Ukraine |
|---|
| 1. Author: The One Who Knocks Date: Sun 21st Apr 2024. 13:39 As Churchill said, "you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing - After they have tried everything else". With this mammoth package of assistance now passing through congress, together with the help already promised and given from European nations, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia and the UK then maybe the candle of freedom burning in Kyiv won`t be snuffed out so easily. Of course it still relies on Ukrainian men, displaying a bravery few of us have, in their thousands bleeding and dying on the battlefield. Post Edited (Sun 21 Apr 13:42) Reply |
| 2. Author: Dave_1885 Date: Sun 21st Apr 2024. 14:56 Would have been as well just sending Nato in and ending the conflict quicker than this 🙄 just delaying the inevitable really! Reply |
| 3. Author: widtink Date: Sun 21st Apr 2024. 16:40 Apologies, I don`t often get involved in this forum but I`m sure I read (somewhere) that the USA had already given Ukraine help to the tune of 70 or 80 odd billion since the war started . So is this 61 billion really going to make much difference? Or am I simplifying it too much ? Admin Reply |
| 4. Author: OzPar Date: Mon 22nd Apr 2024. 05:03 Ukraine is genuinely fecked. It has lost the war, and pumping more money into it is pointless, verging on sadistic. It just encourages the continued slaughter of poor, under-trained Ukrainian conscripts, adding to 10,000 civilians already dead and 20,000 injured. Granted, Ukraine is not quite the mincemeat factory of Gaza, but what has occurred there is disgusting and shameful. Let`s not kid ourselves that this money is bound for Ukraine. It will directly feed the American military-industrial complex, for most of that money stays within the US. The remainder will go to fund a corrupt Ukrainian government and help those running it purchase tasty property in Florida or California for their eventual escape. Again, the bulk of that money will return to the States. If you have been to America in recent years, you would quickly appreciate the folly of this "generosity". Look around, and you see that much of the country is falling apart. America`s infrastructure, once the envy of the world, is a testament to neglect. Many of the main airports look like relics of the 1960s, and public transport is shocking—the railways are awful, and the roads and bridges are often in poor condition. But infrastructure is just the tip of the iceberg. Walk down any city street, and you`ll encounter another facet of social neglect: the homeless, people living in cars, and tent cities—evidence of America`s inadequate social support systems. Then, there are the healthcare and education systems. Medical bills bankrupt families, and education costs put higher learning out of reach for countless Americans. Yet, US politicians refuse to tackle these issues head-on, instead diverting their public`s attention to immigration and foreign wars, and above all, despising the opposition party, which is identical in almost every way. It is truly Orwellian. Ironically, a proportion of the money that reaches the Ukrainian government will help fund government-subsidised pensions, education, and medical services—all of which the US taxpayers who provide the cash do not themselves receive as entitlements. The US national debt is $34 trillion, growing by a trillion every 100 days. I have been meaning to see the new movie Civil War. Frankly, a civil war in America may well be in the offing. Reply |
| 5. Author: sadindiefreak Date: Mon 22nd Apr 2024. 11:07 Oz, you seriously need to stop getting your propaganda from convicted paedophile Scott Ritter. Reply |
| 6. Author: OzPar Date: Mon 22nd Apr 2024. 12:48 It`s important to note that my sources of information are not limited to a single individual. I make a conscious effort to gather insights from various directions, allowing me to form my own, well-rounded conclusions. It is blindingly apparent that events in Ukraine are pointing to one outcome: victory for Russia. This dash for cash is the West`s last throw of the dice, but the politicians know the truth. The game is up. This pedo nonsense with Scott Ritter needs to be thrown out the window and the real story told, but I am not the man to do it. If need be, do a Wiki search to get closer to the facts of that matter. On the subject of sources, recognise for a moment that I am situated 12,000 miles away from you on the other side of the world; politically and culturally, we come to this from very different perspectives. When I watch UK or American TV, I am repeatedly amazed at how distorted they seem. I am not talking about bias here; I am talking about factual errors, left, right, and centre. Get outside the NATO bubble, and you will find very different viewpoints from those you are being fed. You are deliberately being misled, and your media is obscuring the truth from you. For instance, were you aware that the IMF has produced a report that effectively says all those sanctions imposed on Russia have been for naught? The IMF said in its latest World Economic Outlook, published last Tuesday, that Russia is expected to grow 3.2% in 2024, exceeding the forecast growth rates for the U.S. (2.7%), the U.K. (0.5%), Germany (0.2%), and France (0.7%). How bloody embarrassing is that? Reply |
| 7. Author: Andrew283 Date: Mon 22nd Apr 2024. 15:55 OzPar, Mon 22 Apr 12:48 A nation going balls to the wall industry to stockpile their military will obviously grow faster than nations not at war. Reply |
| 8. Author: OzPar Date: Tue 23rd Apr 2024. 01:13 Yes, but... sanctions??? Reply |
| 9. Author: DBP Date: Tue 23rd Apr 2024. 08:03 I remember listening to a podcast about North Korea and the impact sanctions had… Basically, they went from purchasing weapons from one group of people, let’s say ’respectable’ groups - to suddenly being courted by a whole different group of people, much more nefarious, who had a lot ‘more’ to offer They reckoned that sanctions actually sped up their weapons programme Reply |
| 10. Author: Wotsit Date: Tue 23rd Apr 2024. 12:25 I`m glad it wasn`t Oz making the US`s spending decisions in 1940 or we`d be having this conversation in German. The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy. Reply |
| 11. Author: red-star-par Date: Tue 23rd Apr 2024. 14:25 61bn dollars, it`s a lot of money to give away to another country, especially when America has so many issues with poverty at home. I guess a lot of that money ends up in the hands of American arms producers. Really, the rest of the world should be trying to broker a peaceful resolution, there isn`t going to be a happy end to this by adding more arms to a war of atricion. No profit in peace though Reply |
| 12. Author: The One Who Knocks Date: Tue 23rd Apr 2024. 16:48 I think it`s something like a third of it is essentially credit that Ukraine can spend on arms produced in the US. Would be great if a quick and peaceful resolution could be found but when Russia has bombed hospitals, power stations and civilian apartment blocks and then waiting a couple of hours and bombing some targets again so that the rescue workers then become casualties I don`t see peace being on their agenda. And although my eyes were open They just might as well be closed Reply |
| 13. Author: P Date: Tue 23rd Apr 2024. 20:40 Wait, this is still going on? We were assured months ago on these pages that the war was over and Ukraine had lost. It’s almost like that those impartial sources were in fact totally incorrect 🤔 Reply |
| 14. Author: OzPar Date: Mon 29th Apr 2024. 11:30 I`m glad it wasn`t Oz making the US`s spending decisions in 1940 or we`d be having this conversation in German. === Sadly, we are still paying the heavy price of getting the Americans to give us a hand. Britain finally paid Lend-lease in 2006, but there was a range of commitments linked to it that will forever hold the UK to America`s ankle. But if the truth be told, it was the Russians that kicked the Germans` ass and effectively won WW2. Reply |
| 15. Author: The One Who Knocks Date: Mon 29th Apr 2024. 11:32 Certainly played a huge role in it anyway in terms of lives lost. Mind you they were allies for the first two years of the second world war. And although my eyes were open They just might as well be closed Reply |
| 16. Author: parsfan Date: Mon 29th Apr 2024. 11:54 OzPar, Mon 29 Apr 11:30 Yeah, the Soviets did most of the work in Europe, but if it wasn`t for the Americans you`d probably never have moved to what would have been a part of the Japanese Empire. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The universe is ruled by chance and indifference  Reply |
| 17. Author: jake89 Date: Mon 29th Apr 2024. 12:08 I`m not expert but WW2 felt like a few wars going on around the same time. It started off being about central and eastern Europe but then the Russians were involved and finally the Americans and Japanese. I`ll be honest that I`m still unclear on why Russia invaded Ukraine. What have they gained here? Reply |
| 18. Author: Parboiled Date: Mon 29th Apr 2024. 12:17 Britain fought the Nazis longer than anyone else. The Russians were initially their allies and USA only joined in when Hitler declared war on them. Reply |
| 19. Author: OzPar Date: Mon 29th Apr 2024. 12:23 Yeah, the Soviets did most of the work in Europe, but if it wasn`t for the Americans, you`d probably never have moved to what would have been a part of the Japanese Empire. === Australia`s contribution to Europe during WW2 was significant, with approximately a million servicemen being deployed. Their role should not be underestimated. Additionally, the support of America during the Coral Sea Battle was a turning point in history, as it led to the destruction of the Japanese fleet. On land, the Australians demonstrated their resilience by successfully repelling the Japanese in Papua New Guinea. Having the bulk of our troops on the other side of the world left Australia vulnerable, but there was always a doubt that the Japanese would have had the ability to take over this massive continent. Australia is too big and too hostile. I doubt my neighbours would be speaking Japanese. Reply |
| 20. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Tue 30th Apr 2024. 04:33 A lot of the theory around who won the Second World War is quite interesting tbh. I`m more of the thought that the Germans lost the war through several instances of poor decision making. There were two critical turning points: First was the decision to halt attacks on the RAF Airfields and instead bomb London. The Second was the change in command at the Battle of Stalingrad, whereby the new commander left a pincer movement open which allowed the Russians to ressuply and regroup when the Germans were on the edge of winning. Most critically though, Germany refused to adopt the production line on ideological grounds. German fighter aircraft were far better technologically than pretty much anything the Allies had, but they simply didn`t have the numbers of FW190s or Me262s to deal with with the P51s, P47s, Spitfires, YAKs and even the later Tempests. The other issue was the failure to produce a proper heavy bomber comparable to even the B17s or B24s, let alone the Lancaster. The same could be said about the quality of the German Panzer and Tiger tanks vs the Shermans. Had these issues been addressed, they very likely could have beaten Britain and finished off the Soviets and I think its often underestimated just how close the Germans came to victory. The Russians definitely made up more in terms of casualties and in truth probably lost far more soldiers than they needed to because of their poor tactics and direction. In the Pacific, the war really began with Japan`s ventures into China in the early 30s, much of which was due to trade restrictions such as the oil embargos, which were crippling because Japan has hee haw in terms of natural resources. Japan needed to modernise but had no way to do it without creating an Empire. Chang Kai Shek was more interested in fighting the Communists than the Japanese during the civil war which galvanised support for Mao and the Whites held the cities while the reds held the countryside and eventually this led to the current situation where the Whites fled to Taiwan and the Reds took control of the mainland. The Soviets only really got into the pacific conflict toward the end when they fought in Korea. The US did much of the work in the pacific to beat Japan, but Australia did play a prominent role as Oz said. Reply |
Post your Reply
Your Message:
By using your account you have implicitly accepted the DAFC.net Forum Rules and agree to be bound by them. You also agree that you will take sole responsibility for your post and indemnify dafc.net on all matters and costs. Refrain from making any potentially libelous comments about anyone
- - -