Comments by "Eigelstein" (@Eigelstein) on "Russia says Biden adding fuel to fire by letting Ukraine use long-range weapons" video.

  1. Who's plan did Biden follow? Who set the timeline?
    1
  2. ​ @GabrielOrtiz-dp3ld  Yeah, we never claimed that Ukraine was a superpower. We knew from the beginning that they would need help. Unlike what Putin lovers claimed about Russia, supposedly the second greatest military in the world that now needs under-fed N-Korea fighters.
    1
  3.  @DeeHarper-o5x  Yet during the debate with Kamala, he said if he were president-elect, he would end the war. He is that right now, so when is it ending?
    1
  4. Do you think that long-lasting international agreements that promote global stability benefit the US?
    1
  5. ​ @carltoningramjr6142  "Stable according to whose criteria?" I'd say basically all indicators. I know it does not always look like it, but after WW2, international cooperation increased. This is valuable to the US due to the aforementioned global stability. It means more trade, less war (especially in Europe and America's), more US geopolitical influence, which allows it to dictate terms of agreements, and an overall increase in wealth. "What's in it for us average people to give a fug about nations across the OCEAN at war???" Technically speaking, not much in ways that you will immediately notice. But you will notice once the US goes back into isolationism. Then, inevitably, the world will become more multipolar, resulting in more wars. One of these wars will inevitably drag the US in. WW2 comes to mind.
    1
  6.  @carltoningramjr6142  Did I adequately explain my position?
    1
  7.  @carltoningramjr6142  "NOT good enough." Bro, don't give me "nu uh." Engage with what I am actually saying, will you please? I am going to make this simple. I understand that times are tough. For you specifically, you can't get a loan. Okay. Now, the total accumulated amount of US aid that is going to Ukraine is $183 billion. Most of that is military aid, $125 billion. This, for a large part, is old military equipment that the US has no more use for. Another large portion of this is investments into the US economy for weapons manufacturing. The only CASH that the US is sending is $58 billion. Now, assuming that a Bradley tank in your backyard is not going to get you closer to a loan, how is that $58 billion going to get that done? "I'm open-minded. Break it down for me like I'm a HS freshman." If you haven't noticed, I am the only one that has responded to your request. So, if you truly are open-minded, I'd suggest actually putting some effort into this.
    1
  8. ​ @carltoningramjr6142  "NOT good enough." Bro, don't give me "nu uh." Engage with what I am actually saying, will you please?   I am going to make this simple. I understand that times are tough. For you specifically, you can't get a loan.
    1
  9.  @carltoningramjr6142  Okay. Now, the total accumulated amount of US aid that is going to Ukraine is $183 billion. Most of that is military aid, $125 billion. This, for a large part, is old military equipment that the US has no more use for. Another large portion of this is investments into the US economy for weapons manufacturing. The only CASH that the US is sending is $58 billion. Now, assuming that a Bradley tank in your backyard is not going to get you closer to a loan, how is that $58 billion going to get that done?
    1
  10. ​ @carltoningramjr6142  "I'm open-minded. Break it down for me like I'm a HS freshman." If you haven't noticed, I am the only one that has responded to your request. So, if you truly are open-minded, I'd suggest actually putting some effort into this.
    1
  11. ​ @carltoningramjr6142  "We get to get rid of old equipment???" Well yeah, that equipment needs to be replaced anyway. It's outdated, like Vietnam era a lot of the time. If you don't send it to Ukraine, it needs to be either sold, dismantled at a steep discount/cost or be safely stored away (which costs money). And ammunition has a shelf life (in terms of ammunition performance efficiency). So why not give it to an ally that is fighting your geopolitical rival? Plus, a lot of CASH that is being sent is either loans or investments in US defence spending (which is some weird money shenanigans, it's a whole thing). Like seriously, the only CASH that the US is sending is $58 billion. Now, assuming that a Bradley tank in your backyard is not going to get you closer to a loan, how is that $58 billion going to get that done? And what are you getting out of it? I already touched upon it, but geopolitical stability/influence with the US as the global hegemon. Let me ask you this. Should the US be an isolationist country?
    1
  12.  @carltoningramjr6142  Did you see my comment?
    1