Time for the U.S. to forget about Ukraine and move on. Now even Biden has no real desire to give them military aid.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...92s-Plan-To-Link-Ukraine-Aid-And-LNG-Reversal
It's 100% Europe's problem now.
Ukraine will finally get u.s. aid
- Thread starter anonymoose
- Start date
Time for the U.S. to forget about Ukraine and move on. Now even Biden has no real desire to give them military aid.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...92s-Plan-To-Link-Ukraine-Aid-And-LNG-Reversal
It's 100% Europe's problem now.
There were definitely some American tanks in Vietnam, but very, very few. In 1974 and 1975, after the Vietnamizing of the war by Nixon, there were North Vietnamese tanks coming south. The North Vietnamese could not use tanks until America withdrew its air support. And America could not use its tanks because the Vietcong had the habit of retreating into places the tanks would get stuck.
That being said, Saigon was taken by North Vietnamese tanks. Saigon was defended by American tanks. The two tank groups never met, being separated by years.
The 1965 war both sides had western tanks, and it was a draw. The 1971 war India had switched to Soviet tanks, with Pakistan having out dated western tanks, that was a victory for India. I do not believe it can be made a contest between east and west, but if it is, the west lost.
American tanks got within sight of the Chinese border. Total victory was at hand. Then the Chinese came over the border. They easily outmaneuvered American tanks, and American lines collapsed. No point in modern American history has retreating American forces been able to turn around and fight. It is our secret weakness. American forces literally outran the Chinese.
You will say that the Chinese defeated American tanks with other strategies and technologies than tanks, but that does not change the fact their strategies and technologies defeated American tanks.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The above shows you have no clue about the Vietnam war. The USMC shipped over a heavy tank battalion of M103, along with a battalion of M50 Ontos, and their LVTP 5 Amtracks.
The US Army had a number of mechanized cavalry regiments in country each with M48A3's and M113's. The M551 Sheridan was sent to two mech cavalry regiments. US airborne forces had the M56 Scorpion with them. The M 42 Duster SPAA was popular as it could put out massive anti-infantry firepower.
All in all, the US had a couple thousand tanks and armored fighting vehicles in Vietnam. The Australians brought in a battalion of Centurian tanks with their forces.
The ARVN had a battalion of M48A3 and several battalions of M41 light tanks (~52 vehicles each). They also had hundreds of M113 APC's. They also had several battalions of old M24 Chaffee light tanks of late WW 2 vintage that were capable of infantry support and taking on NVA light armor, if not the T55 /59.
In the Indian-Pakistan wars, Soviet tanks did poorly compared to Western vehicles. In the '65 war, the largest tank battle was Asal Uttar with the Pakistanis losing about a 5 to 1 ratio of Soviet tanks to Indian Western types. That battle accounts for more than 50% of all tank losses in that war.
At Chawinda, both sides were equipped with Western tanks (M48's vs Centurions for the most part) and the losses were virtually even.
At Chumb in 1971, both sides were using Soviet-style tanks, T55's versus Chinese copy T59's. Again, the losses were about even.
In Korea, US and British armor, generally ran the field against N. Korean and Chinese armor. It wasn't US tanks versus Soviet-style armor that allowed China to push UN forces back but simply sheer weight of numbers in infantry. As for the last, you obviously know nothing about the actual fighting in say, the Ardennes Offensive (aka Battle of the Bulge) where US forces did turn around and fight often in ad hoc units and were very effective.
The Chinese in Korea only succeeded due to sheer numbers. They were willing to take thousands of casualties to take a position held by hundreds of UN troops. UN armored units, US British, or other, operated not only successfully against Chinese and N. Korean armor and almost 100% of the time handed them their asses.
Pakistan had no Russian tanks in the War of 1965. It was India who had 90 Soviet PT-76's. All the other tanks used in the war were from western countries (Patton, Sherman, Centurion, Chaffee, AMX-13).
The Pakistanis had Patton tanks at Asal Uttar. The area became known of Patton City because of all the destroyed Patton tanks. They were mostly destroyed with Soviet recoilless rifles. It was a disturbing battle for the west.
The Chinese did not have many more frontline troops than the Americans. The Americans had air superiority, sea superiority, and artillery superiority. The Chinese had to carry everything they need to the frontlines by hand, while being constantly bombed.
The Chinese were able to easily infiltrate American lines, because Americans refused to defend for from roads, or defend anywhere in depth. It was a clear victory of Chinese strategy over American strategy.
Ever watch the TV series Band of Brothers? It showed the 101st coming out of R&R and going to Bastogne without the weapons and ammo they needed. They got weapons and ammo by pulling it off of the retreating American forces that were passing through Bastogne. Here is the obvious question: why weren't those retreating forces turning around and using the weapons they had to fight?
With the Battle of the Bulge, new American forces were pulled up to the frontline to give the retreating forces time to regroup, before the regrouped forces could start fighting. Germans were shocked by this, because they fought, retreated, and then fought again, without having to regroup.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
because it's mostly unnecessary and only serves to enrich bloodthirsty demented oligarchs who create division for their own profit.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
it's sad to me how much time you obviously smart people have devoted to abject stupidity.
When is this vote happening, it's already April 5?
The Democratic Senate passed a Ukraine military aid bill months ago and sent it to the House
It’s not. It’s dead.
Johnson was never serious in bringing it to a vote - until he was. Now Biden has basically said he’s got other priorities.
Moldova will be next to go down.
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It’s not. It’s dead.
Johnson was never serious in bringing it to a vote - until he was. Now Biden has basically said he’s got other priorities.
Moldova will be next to go down.
Another example of the Republicans proving they are unable to do their jobs. Sad.
It’s not. It’s dead.
Johnson was never serious in bringing it to a vote - until he was. Now Biden has basically said he’s got other priorities.
Moldova will be next to go down.
So your prediction of this coming to a vote was wrong.
Correct. It still may come to a vote but Brandon has already indicated he would veto it.
Moldova will be next, then the Suwalki Gap, then the Baltics.
Easy pickings with the U.S. no longer a faithful NATO ally and Western Europe too welfare addicted and decadent to have the grit to defend themselves.
Not republicans. The senate overwhelmingly voted to support Ukraine. The house would too. The little self righteous MAGA prick Johnson has that much power.
Ay least he came up with a very reasonable compromise which Brandon effectively said he’d veto.
So Ukraine has little to no support from just a select few pussies in government, and that makes all the difference.
Last edited:
Wait, let me see if I have this straight, last November after the Senate confirmed their willingness for an aid package for the Ukraine the House said they would not even consider any aid package unless it also included border reform
After months working bipartisanly across the isle, the House then proclaimed they weren’t interested in the new aid package even though the got the border reform provision they requested
So now six monrhs later the House comes up with their own aid proposal, one that includes several riders not even remotely related to aid for the Ukraine just as the previous border request wasn’t, and it is the Democrats fault aid isn’t on its way to the Ukraine?
Question becomes why can’t the House just pass an aid package for the Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan? Why does every proposal have to have other unrelated provisions? Why are the goal posts being constantly moving?
Biden is not going to veto a clean Ukraine funding bill, especially one that was supported by the Democratic Senate.
Putin was smart to hold out until Republicans were given a driver's seat in 2022. American willpower is weak, and the Kremlin correctly calculated that Russian tenacity completely out matches American fortitude.
Because the little prick who thinks the earth is 6000 years old won't bring it to a vote. He knows if he did it would easily pass. You know that.
Johnson just wants to send desperately needed LNG to Western Europe as a compromise. Brandon won't allow it. Now we know where his priority is. He's actually less interested in supporting Ukraine than even Johnson.
Not really that smart. He had no choice. His good fortune.
No doubt. I now hate republicans as much as dems. I hate my system of govt. It has finally reached the point of complete dysfunction.
I remember seeing JFK's speeches on youtube supporting liberty and freedom anywhere in the world. Same with Reagan. That no longer holds true. In fact the MAGAs have no interest in opposing authoritarian dictators if not outright supporting them. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Still sad since the Republicans control the House and they can't get bills passed.
Because Trump effectively has control of the House. And that, only because he controls a select few in the right places. There's something serious wrong w/ our system of govt. when this is even possible.
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
"We get the government we deserve".
Americans voted those representatives into office. At least the 60% or so who bothered to vote.
Johnson Indicates Ukraine Aid Will Be Addressed
Johnson emphasized the challenges the historically narrow House majority posed. Still, he affirmed his commitment to crafting a bipartisan package.
He emphasized the necessity of building consensus in an era of divided government. He underscored the importance of bipartisan support for specific measures, particularly when addressing critical issues like aid for Ukraine.
Johnson revealed that discussions were underway during the current work period to garner support from all members, with plans to introduce the aid package upon the House’s return to session.
the REPO Act
https://www.bing.com/search?q=+the+...398541B7816C04EF41B1F6A8&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=
natural gas exports to Europe ... which Brandon indicates he will veto.
Johnson’s remarks align with House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner’s assertion of overwhelming congressional support for Ukraine funding upon their return. Turner emphasized Speaker Johnson’s commitment to prioritizing Ukraine funding and anticipated swift legislative action to place a bill on the president’s desk.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=c6ab65c6352949e888dbef7266c1c441&ei=11
Johnson emphasized the challenges the historically narrow House majority posed. Still, he affirmed his commitment to crafting a bipartisan package.
He emphasized the necessity of building consensus in an era of divided government. He underscored the importance of bipartisan support for specific measures, particularly when addressing critical issues like aid for Ukraine.
Johnson revealed that discussions were underway during the current work period to garner support from all members, with plans to introduce the aid package upon the House’s return to session.
the REPO Act
https://www.bing.com/search?q=+the+...398541B7816C04EF41B1F6A8&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=
natural gas exports to Europe ... which Brandon indicates he will veto.
Johnson’s remarks align with House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner’s assertion of overwhelming congressional support for Ukraine funding upon their return. Turner emphasized Speaker Johnson’s commitment to prioritizing Ukraine funding and anticipated swift legislative action to place a bill on the president’s desk.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=c6ab65c6352949e888dbef7266c1c441&ei=11
Last edited: