O/T:- Betting odds for US Election [The USA Politics Thread]

[Jampie]

Well, across much of the media, they have a different opinion to you with regards to Biden and Harris. Even a smiling Jill Biden being photographed after voting in the election, dressed in a beautiful red suit, says quite a lot to those who have a brain.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comme...a-harris-lost/

Biden actually sent the US Army into the Red Sea with Operation Prosperity Guardian in 2023. You can't knock the Democrats for their inventive campaign names!

With regards to the Afghanistan withdrawal, you must have been living in a cave. That was a MASSIVE debacle. Thousands of Afghanis who had supported the US, left to face the wrath of the Taliban. Billions of dollars of US war inventory, left behind for the Taliban and thir**** US soldiers and over 100 Afghanis killed by a suicide bomber at Kabul International Airport.

Even the lefty press called it chaotic.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ithdrawal-book

With regards to Australia invading New Zealand, I'd be more concerned about New Zealand invading Australia if I was you. With the amount of Kiwis leaving NZ for Aussie, you'll be in the minority soon.

As former NZ Prime Minister, Rob Muldoon once said, "New Zealanders emigrating to Australia raises the IQ in both countries."

Biden sent the US Navy into the Red Sea, not the army. I'm not sure the army swimming around would've done much to stop Houthi attacks on shiping.

Point out where I said the Afghan withdrawal was a flawless operation? I said it happened and Biden did it. You were calling him a warmonger at the time.

Regarding Kiwis invading Australia, please google our populations and do some third grade maths to figure out the flaw in your argument. And Mr Muldoon's, apparently.

[drillerpie]

Well, there's a difference between equipping Ukraine with the ability to defend its territory and equipping them with long-range precision weapons to fire deep into Russian territory. My point is the latter seems like a dangerous escalation, and I don't understand the timing or benefit of it - unless it's to cause as big a mess as possible for the new president to clear up.

If you disagree then fine.

I don't understand the timing either - I'd have made the decision a long time ago, but I don't think it makes a mess for the new president at all.

If his intention is to stop supporting Ukraine, as he has hinted he will, and his VP has pretty much said they will, and a lot of his supporters feel he should, then it sets him up for another high profile summit like like the North Korea one where he can play the statesman, come out and say he's refused permission for Ukraine to use these weapons and others, and say he's just saved the world from nuclear armageddon.

If deep down he actually wants Ukraine to use these weapons, either to strengthen Ukraine's bargaining position or because he feels it's right they should be able to defend themselves properly, then he can point to the fact that Biden did it but not him. I don't see how it leaves him with a big mess at all. It's a win/win for Trump.

The fake distinction between Ukraine being able to 'defend its territory' and launching missiles 'deep into Russia' is baffling to me. You are clearly an intelligent poster and I refuse to believe that you think Ukraine can defend its territory from Russian bombers taking off in Russia and dropping 1 tonne guided bombs on populated areas from Russian airspace without taking any action to stop this inside Russia. This is not escalation - this is common sense and America providing weapons and Ukraine using them in Russia is fully permitted under international law.

'Deep into Russia' is also misleading rhetoric. We are talking about missiles that can reach maximum 190 miles into Russia as opposed to the 50 mile reach of the HIMARS they already launch into Russia. 140 extra miles in a country that stretches all the way to the Pacific. Not that deep really, is it?

From your last line I suppose you don't want to talk about this any more (I know, it's a football forum) but happy to continue the debate if you choose to.

[slack_pie]

I don't understand the timing either - I'd have made the decision a long time ago, but I don't think it makes a mess for the new president at all.

If his intention is to stop supporting Ukraine, as he has hinted he will, and his VP has pretty much said they will, and a lot of his supporters feel he should, then it sets him up for another high profile summit like like the North Korea one where he can play the statesman, come out and say he's refused permission for Ukraine to use these weapons and others, and say he's just saved the world from nuclear armageddon.

If deep down he actually wants Ukraine to use these weapons, either to strengthen Ukraine's bargaining position or because he feels it's right they should be able to defend themselves properly, then he can point to the fact that Biden did it but not him. I don't see how it leaves him with a big mess at all. It's a win/win for Trump.

The fake distinction between Ukraine being able to 'defend its territory' and launching missiles 'deep into Russia' is baffling to me. You are clearly an intelligent poster and I refuse to believe that you think Ukraine can defend its territory from Russian bombers taking off in Russia and dropping 1 tonne guided bombs on populated areas from Russian airspace without taking any action to stop this inside Russia. This is not escalation - this is common sense and America providing weapons and Ukraine using them in Russia is fully permitted under international law.

'Deep into Russia' is also misleading rhetoric. We are talking about missiles that can reach maximum 190 miles into Russia as opposed to the 50 mile reach of the HIMARS they already launch into Russia. 140 extra miles in a country that stretches all the way to the Pacific. Not that deep really, is it?

From your last line I suppose you don't want to talk about this any more (I know, it's a football forum) but happy to continue the debate if you choose to.

If this situation is a win-win for Trump, why did the Dems set it up for him to benefit no matter what? Seems a rather strange "favour" to grant an incoming president. If you genuinely see it that way, why did the Dems choose to do it now and now earlier?

I understand your point that these missile strikes are technically a way for Ukraine to defend itself and not a full-on offensive strike. In football terms, "attack is the best form of defence." It is escalation nonetheless. If I understand correctly, these missiles cannot be fired without a load of additional hardware and technical infrastructure - i.e. satellites - that must be provided and presumably operated by the US. It's not a simple weapon that you can just hand over to anyone. It may well be permitted under international law, but it's a sign of the West a) wanting to prolong the war, and b) wanting to play a more hands-on role in the war.

Fair point about my "deep into Russia" comment. Can't argue with that.

Happy to debate stuff if it remains cordial. To be honest, I know very little about warfare and statecraft - I'm just a peasant Notts fan. All I know is that this war has to end one way or another. It can end with talks and concessions from both sides, or it can end with more bloodshed and destruction, the extent of which we cannot know. I prefer the first option always and would support any world leader looking to push forward peace talks rather than upping the ante with more weaponry. I understand that might be seen as naive.

[SmiffyPie]

When you have strength, you don't have conflict.

When you have strength and instigate conflict going against treaties and agreements you have previously made you are an aggressor. VP banked on your weak West and got a shock when they weren't as weak as he thought.

[applepie2]

When you have strength, you don't have conflict. Russia has done what is has done because the US and its leaders are weak.

When nuclear weapons were a big thing and 'threatened world peace', the NATO countries didn't start firing them at the Warsaw Pact countries and vice versa to show how powerful they were. They were a deterrent - never used.

Do you think Russia is strong in their dealings with Ukraine? They certainly seem to have conflict, possibly because people don't like being bullied by their bigger neighbour.

[Chicken Balti Pie]

Biden sent the US Navy into the Red Sea, not the army. I'm not sure the army swimming around would've done much to stop Houthi attacks on shiping.

Point out where I said the Afghan withdrawal was a flawless operation? I said it happened and Biden did it. You were calling him a warmonger at the time.

Regarding Kiwis invading Australia, please google our populations and do some third grade maths to figure out the flaw in your argument. And Mr Muldoon's, apparently.

The former Kiwi prime minister was saying you'd have to be stupid to move to Australia from New Zealand but even the most stupid kiwis are more intelligent than Australians. It was a great quip that bantered two sets of people, great quip

[upthemaggies]

I am not watching or looking at any news. If WWIII is about to begin I will know because I will see people out of my window carrying bog rolls when the panic buying starts.

[Lullapie]

Biden sent the US Navy into the Red Sea, not the army. I'm not sure the army swimming around would've done much to stop Houthi attacks on shiping.

Point out where I said the Afghan withdrawal was a flawless operation? I said it happened and Biden did it. You were calling him a warmonger at the time.

Regarding Kiwis invading Australia, please google our populations and do some third grade maths to figure out the flaw in your argument. And Mr Muldoon's, apparently.

Pure semantics. You are in complete denial. Just carry on in your own little world.

[Lullapie]

When you have strength and instigate conflict going against treaties and agreements you have previously made you are an aggressor. VP banked on your weak West and got a shock when they weren't as weak as he thought.

Possibly, but the 'threat' is the deterrent. Treaties are sometimes a bad thing. They brings other countries into conflict and escalates something that could have been negotiated.

During the Cold War, there was no direct conflict between the Superpowers. The fear of the two sides obliterating each other, prevented global annihilation.

[Lullapie]

Do you think Russia is strong in their dealings with Ukraine? They certainly seem to have conflict, possibly because people don't like being bullied by their bigger neighbour.

I think Putin is holding back. It's funny the odd 'Ukraine is on the verge of beating Russia' story pops up in the media, but Russia will just keep on ploughing more resources into the war.

In my opinion, the only way to stop it, is for Ukraine to cede parts of Ukraine that the Russians have already taken over. This is all Ukraine can really offer Russia to obtain a ceasefire. Like Poland, the Ukraine, because of its geographical position, has been a war zone for centuries. They have strategic importance to both Europe and Asia.

Both sides would want an honourable way out of it. Ploughing more munitions into the conflict only benefits the arms manufacturers. Russia has done quite well out of the war too, with China and India ramping up the amount of cheap fuel that they have bought from them and now China and India are buying nearly all their fuel from Russia.

It makes me smile the number of people that are castigating Russia's attack on the Ukraine, but are happy to buy product from China and India. Their savings in pounds is far more important than preventing human devastation and misery.