Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Sciutto: 'Closer to the first use of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki than we realized'" video.

Ukraine isn't exactly unarmed. America alone has spent some $13 billion on providing it with weapons and training.
55
So that's why they're winning?
37
No it doesn't. It just means he puts his country first.
16
And it will be America's fault for poking the bear. My God - what an incredible series of ill-judged moves have been made in recent years!
2
@DaDansinBear I'm 75.
1
@rensinclair4218 And you are a pompous ass.
1
@rensinclair4218 And you are just a teeny, teeny bit full of yourself, ain'tcha?
1
@rensinclair4218 And you are somewhat pompous, I feel.
1
And suffer the indignity of being conquered???
1
@natalliya2703 Nonsense. Between 2014 and the invasion America and its NATO allies had spent billions on creating a Ukrainian army. It was to defeat this army on its home territory that Putin invaded.
1
@bongopirate0672 Well it kind of destroys realtalk5329's argument, doesn't it?
1
@Stevekpb In 2014 a Russian-leaning government was overthrown by the CIA. Putin retook Crimea without a fight and created the Wagner Group in order to support separatists in Donbass. If that first step hadn't been taken none of this would have happened.
1
@natalliya2703 Between 2014 and 2022 America and its NATO allies spent billions on creating a new army for Ukraine, as per @napoleon7107y's reply to you earlier.
1
@Stevekpb They'd have been better off negotiating a peaceful solution. AS it is it looks as though Putin will be getting a bit more than he asked for in the first place.
1
@SavageJunky And maybe a million people get killed in order to provide jobs for Americans? Don't seem much of a deal to me.
1
@SavageJunky A war involving the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives does seem to me to be a high price to pay for bolstering America's employment figures.
1
@Trump2PrisonOn34Counts Russia keeps its old stuff - and then sends it out to soak up enemy firepower. But I don't think I see your point otherwise. Are you saying that it's a good thing that America saves money on the arms it sends to Ukraine to kill people with?
1
@mnomadvfx That was then and this is now. The question of nuclear weapons removed from Ukraine does not enter into the present argument. They were Russian anyway, and the Russians just took them back. I'm not quite sure where you got this "promise not to invade" from. Do you have a source?
1