So why shouldn't the UK and the US go to war with Russia?

In the 1850s the UK and France went to war with Russia to stop Russian expansionism in the Black Sea area. Russia invaded Ukraine and took land. This violates world peace. So why shouldn't the US and the UK enter the war and drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea? It can't be because of democracy and public opinion because back in the 1850s the UK already had elections and nobody in the UK opposed the Crimean war. It's not like people in the US will oppose the US entering the war on Ukraine's side to drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea. So why not?

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: the3amigos
In the 1850s the UK and France went to war with Russia to stop Russian expansionism in the Black Sea area. Russia invaded Ukraine and took land. This violates world peace. So why shouldn't the US and the UK enter the war and drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea? It can't be because of democracy and public opinion because back in the 1850s the UK already had elections and nobody in the UK opposed the Crimean war. It's not like people in the US will oppose the US entering the war on Ukraine's side to drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea. So why not?

en.wikipedia.org...

Because all 3 countries have nuclear arsenals.

a reply to: Boomer1947

It's not like nuclear weapons would be used.

a reply to: the3amigos

So why shouldn't the UK and the US go to war with Russia?

That's an easy question to answer, silly rabbit!

I can tell you why they MUST go to war, my friend.

SO THAT THE POLITICIANS AND THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX CAN MAKE MONEY MONEY MONEY AND CULL OUT SOME OF THE USELESS EATERS.

Don't kid yourself. This is exactly and only what it's all about.

Democracy? PSH!

Public opinion? PSH!

Preserving world peace? PSH!

Stopping expansionism? PSH!



:

originally posted by: the3amigos
a reply to: Boomer1947

It's not like nuclear weapons would be used.

No one wants to take the chance.

Not our circus, not our monkeys.

Unless you have children working in Ukraine as so many career US politicians do. Or an interest in the MIC.

Hence the $ to fund it...

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican
Not our circus, not our monkeys.

Unless you have children working in Ukraine as so many career US politicians do. Or an interest in the MIC.

Hence the $ to fund it...

Not my circus. Not your circus. Not my or your monkeys.

But it's a favorite circus of the aforementioned (by me) politicians and MIC honchos. It's definitely their circus, and they are making their monkeys dance. And many of those monkeys don't even live in eastern europe, don't even speak Ukraine or Russian, could find either on a map, but are passionate about crap about which they know nothing because their masters have told them to dance.

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican
Not our circus, not our monkeys.

Unless you have children working in Ukraine as so many career US politicians do. Or an interest in the MIC.

Hence the $ to fund it...

Actually, all 3 of the countries mentioned (plus Ukraine) signed the Budapest Memorandum in which they all agreed to respect the territorial boundaries of Ukraine as they existed in 1991 in return for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal. All 3 of the nuclear powers (US, UK, Russia) agreed that they would not engage in direct military conflict with each other over this issue, specifically to avoid the possibility of escalating to a nuclear exchange. The US and UK also agreed to provide Assurance to Ukraine that the terms of the agreement would be enforced, short of actually deploying US or UK troops in direct contact with Russian troops. That's the rationale for why we are supplying arms and money to Ukraine right now; it's the price we agreed to pay in order to have one less nuclear-armed country in the world. That's what makes it our circus and our monkeys.

Because Russia is not the enemy, never really has been. The U.S.S.R. was an enemy but the Stigma never whore off and the MIC plans to keep it that way with world powers. People seem to think the MIC is strictly the United States, it's not.

a reply to: the3amigos

I honestly don't want a war and have some Russian friends. That's why. We are already doing a lot to help Ukraine. I support continuing what we are doing to help, but prefer that it stays within Ukraine and not become a global war.

a reply to: Boomer1947

So tell me where Def Sec Austin gets off threatening Congress to send their family to the circus?

And at what point are you willing to hold this line vs the actual welfare of the American taxpayer footing the bill?

originally posted by: the3amigos

In the 1850s the UK and France went to war with Russia to stop Russian expansionism in the Black Sea area. Russia invaded Ukraine and took land. This violates world peace. So why shouldn't the US and the UK enter the war and drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea?

The French and the British did it before, let them do it again. The US will have your back. When I say "have your back" I mean we'll be happy to sell you all the arms and ammunition you can buy. Wholesale prices, cash up front, of course.

a reply to: the3amigos
There was no land called Ukraine on any map before the 1920's . Atlases and maps from the past show the land just being under either the Polish, Lithuanian, or Russian Kingdoms between like 1000 ad and world war 1. The name Ukraine finally shows up after world war 1.

Honestly, with that logic, shouldn't it be acceptable for a chunk of the world to get together and go to war with the USA, UK, France, Australia and even Canada?? These four have been contributing forces to invasions and government overthrows for like forty years now. Canada and Australia contribute to almost every campaign the UK is involved with for obvious reasons. And That means they roll with the USA .

I don't personally think the world benefits from an open peer to peer war with Russia. Europe would simply be in ruins AGAIN, the USA will sink some stuff in the Pacific and pretty much keep them from doing anything naval wise, but that kind of open war would include China as there would be kinetic actions occuring off their coast and they already have deep ties with Russia.

I do not even bother factoring the nukes, because the only justified use of one will be to prevent a capitol from falling under enemy occupation and do not expect anyone's capitol to be occupied with boots. There will be lots of missile strikes in these capitols though.

Because wars are horrible. Nobody needs to be in one.

It is far, far, far, far smarter for us to support local countries being attacked, and help them dig out, than allow this to grow into a larger conflict.

The US, UK, Australia, Germany, France, and many, many other countries are living peaceful lives at the moment. Not perfect, but peaceful. Let's keep it that way.

No, the west does not want, or need a war.

But if we are challenged... well how does it go? # around and find out, right?

a reply to: the3amigos
Is Putin a mad man or not I forget

Either way I have absolutely no doubt if any and I mean any country with nuclear weapons is beat down hard enough in a war they will use them

I'd rather not play a game of chicken seeing at exactly how much of a loss any nuclear capable country is willing to take

a reply to: the3amigos

Because the UK military could all fit in a football stadium due to cuts for years,can only therefore fight if its Americas bitch and would be all dead within months.
Maybe that's what in those brown men dinghy marines are being imported for?Now I know why they are being kept in luxury, they are waiting for deployment to Russia.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: the3amigos

In the 1850s the UK and France went to war with Russia to stop Russian expansionism in the Black Sea area. Russia invaded Ukraine and took land. This violates world peace. So why shouldn't the US and the UK enter the war and drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea?

The French and the British did it before, let them do it again. The US will have your back. When I say "have your back" I mean we'll be happy to sell you all the arms and ammunition you can buy. Wholesale prices, cash up front, of course.

What no lend lease?We were the only ones who ever paid our debts so surely our name is good for credit?

originally posted by: Mahogani
Because wars are horrible. Nobody needs to be in one. ...

Unless you happen to be a corrupt politician (Are there any other types?) or one o their big business comrades. Then wars are proitable an only hurt the insignificant plebes.

originally posted by: glen200376

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: the3amigos

In the 1850s the UK and France went to war with Russia to stop Russian expansionism in the Black Sea area. Russia invaded Ukraine and took land. This violates world peace. So why shouldn't the US and the UK enter the war and drive Russians out of Donba and Crimea?

The French and the British did it before, let them do it again. The US will have your back. When I say "have your back" I mean we'll be happy to sell you all the arms and ammunition you can buy. Wholesale prices, cash up front, of course.

What no lend lease?We were the only ones who ever paid our debts so surely our name is good for credit?

OK, fine. Just put up the Crown Jewels as collateral and we'll extend credit. The French still have to pay in gold or silver. Because, you know, they're French.

So why shouldn't the UK and the US go to war with Russia?

Why should we? We aren't the worlds policemen. We shouldn't be spilling American blood for everyone else. We have our own border that is being over run and we are being invaded ourselves. THAT is where our troops should be.