Saginaw Bay Area - Michigan | ccjersey - 4/2/2024 16:46
Your question is based on the premise that the Ukrainians are only fighting to repel the Russians because we are supporting them. I think it is very obvious that they were going to fight no matter what we did and will fight no matter what we do. Sort of goes with the territory in a border war. Reminds me of the old question “Is this a private fight or can anybody get in it? “
From my perspective we only need to give them the weapons and they’ll take care of the fighting. That seems a no brainer to me.
I don’t like the sound of limiting resources so “we” fight until the last Ukrainian. I hope that everyone's is on the same page that we will send what is necessary to conclude the war promptly.
No, my questions are based on the premise that fighting will happen regardless of our level of support.
See if you can answer the questions I posted above.. Try to look at it from an objective third party. How many people die if we do nothing. How many die if we do something. How many die if we do everything. Consider a life equally valuable whether it's Ukraine, Russia or America.
From the perspective you've provided in this response, it would appear you consider Ukraine to continue to fight as long as we give them $/weapons. What is the outcome?
Historically, in the Afghan example, we pumped them with money and weapons to repel the [evil] invaders. That strung the conflict out for 10 years. They lost 10% of their population because of the continued fighting. Then we went in there for another 10 years and lost how many American lives and spent how many billions. What was the outcome?
|
Ukraine at Easter
