Skip Navigation

Biden Issues Order To Send 3,000 U.S Reserve Troops To Europe

wsau.com Biden Issues Order To Send 3,000 U.S Reserve Troops To Europe

WASHINGTON DC (WSAU) - The Pentagon will be able to call up to 3,000 military reservists for deployment to Eur...

Biden Issues Order To Send 3,000 U.S Reserve Troops To Europe
253
United States | News & Politics @lemmy.ml NightOwl @lemmy.fmhy.ml
Biden Issues Order To Send 3,000 U.S Reserve Troops To Europe

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
253 comments
  • No offense but you sound like an idiot.

    I have just as much a right not to die fighting a foreign war as a Ukrainian has to die fighting for their country.

    Advocating for an increase in US military involvement in a foreign war sounds like someone hasn't studied the great 20th century conflicts. If you'd like, I am a practicing historian and I can give you a reading list at your literacy level to give you some context for current world events.

    • So "I have the right to safety and the Ukranians have the right to die" sums up your position?

      If you want the conflict to end then why aren't you advocating for Russia to cease their hostility and invasion of a sovereign nation? You seem to only be concerned with people opposing this Russian aggression and the war that they started.

      • Ukraine is more than capable of defending itself. The US has no obligation whatsoever to that country. I would love if Russia just decided to stop, but I don't think that's a likely scenario. What does seem likely is if the us directly commits troops this will escalate the current situation dramatically. Any US involvement will trigger a declaration of war by Russia on the us. That will trigger article 5 of NATO brining all members of the alliance into war. Both side have nuclear weapons which will be used barring some sort of miracle rendering plutonium inert or something.

        I have just as much a right not to die over some territory on the other side of the world as the Ukrainians do defending their land. Didn't know that was controversial. Hope you're ready to die for Ukraine then

        • The US did make an agreement with Ukraine (the Budapest Agreement), Russia, and the UK that stated if they gave up their nuclear arsenal, we'd guarantee their security. Russia violated that agreement with their invasion and now we're holding up our end of the bargain by offering security.

          I highly doubt Russia would declare war on the US (and by extension NATO) as there is no way for them to win such a war when they're already struggling to capture former USSR nations. You stating that nuclear war is inevitable is just sewing FUD and has little basis in reality. Putin might be unhinged but I doubt his military leaders are willing to make the entire planet unlivable just to further his agenda.

          You wanting to sit on the sidelines is no guarantee of safety. Russia isn't going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?

          • The Budapest memorandum of which you speak provides no obligation for the US to provide any security assurances, but provudes justification of action is taken. It is in no way legally binding the US to provide any sort of military obligation to Ukraine.

            I highly doubt Russia would declare war on the US (and by extension NATO) as there is no way for them to win such a war when they’re already struggling to capture former USSR nations.

            And your whole argument for increasing us military intervention is containing Russia yet you admit they could not in any way do that with their current military capacity. You even admit as much later in your comment contradicting yourself when you say

            Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?

            It's incredibly nieve to think Russia wouldn't declare war on the US if that committed military assets in direct active warfare against theirs.

            You stating that nuclear war is inevitable is just sewing FUD and has little basis in reality. Putin might be unhinged but I doubt his military leaders are willing to make the entire planet unlivable just to further his agenda.

            It is rooted in historical factuality. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that they are willing to use. Not against Ukraine because they're not too stupid to provoke a nuclear exchange like that but a hot war with NATO would leave them little option but to use the nukes because as we've both acknowledged, they lack the capacity for a wide scale conventional war in Europe.

            Even if it is FUD, do you really want to roll the dice on wether on not this could trigger a nuclear event? I don't want to get anywhere close to that. While you seem to be yeehawing like Major Kong

            So the only situation where a Russian bomb falls on my house is when it's an ICBM launched because the US escalated themselves into full on war over Ukraine.

            • The Budapest memorandum of which you speak provides no obligation for the US to provide any security assurances, but provudes justification of action is taken. It is in no way legally binding the US to provide any sort of military obligation to Ukraine.

              You stated the US has no obligation to help Ukraine, which is proven wrong with said agreement stating we would offer protection. You never stated anything about "legal obligations," nor did I argue we have a legal obligation but I suppose it's easier to move the goalposts than admit to being proven wrong.

              And your whole argument for increasing us military intervention is containing Russia yet you admit they could not in any way do that with their current military capacity.

              What I stated was that they're struggling with Ukraine and could not win a war against NATO currently. I also stated that if they were to capture Ukraine they would have a whole nation of conscripts to do their bidding. They would be more powerful combined and would likely continue their attempts to conquer their neighboring sovereign nations and build influence if not stopped.

              You even admit as much later in your comment contradicting yourself when you say Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?

              I meant Russia attacking the US is just as likely as Russia launching nuclear weapons. You seem to think once they've conquered Ukraine that'll be the end of things which is laughably absurd. Why would they stop with Ukraine if the rest of the world just allows it to happen unchecked?

              It's incredibly nieve to think Russia wouldn't declare war on the US if that committed military assets in direct active warfare against theirs.

              Who said they wouldn't? This is a strawman argument. I stated that they wouldn't drop nukes.

              It is rooted in historical factuality. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that they are willing to use. Not against Ukraine because they're not too stupid to provoke a nuclear exchange like that but a hot war with NATO would leave them little option but to use the nukes because as we've both acknowledged, they lack the capacity for a wide scale conventional war in Europe.

              What historical factuality? The only country to ever use a nuke is the US at the end of WWII. Please enlighten us on how you've determined Russia is willing to use nukes when they've never in history used them.

              Even if it is FUD, do you really want to roll the dice on wether on not this could trigger a nuclear event? I don't want to get anywhere close to that.

              As I tried to allude to in my previous comment, what guarantee is there that allowing Russia to conquer Europe unchecked won't also lead to nuclear conflict? You seem willing to roll the dice with that, so why not here too? Why not stamp out their aggression just as it's getting started rather than waiting until they have nations full of cannon fodder to throw at the rest of the world in addition to their nuclear arsenal?

You've viewed 253 comments.