Give Ukraine the weapons they want. Any of them. All of them.

[speak easy]

How often does Ukraine have to prove they are trustworthy, professional partners, that any military would be proud to have fighting with them, side by side?

[PortTack]

1. And the sooner the better. Stop the killing and destruction. This will eventually spill into a NATO

If they don’t

Slava Ukraine!

[speak easy]

2. Looking back, Zelenskyy was a 1000% correct -

NATO should have called Putin's bluff by imposing a no fly zone on Day One.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

8. I could not disagree more.

Had we done that we'd have been in WWIII by now.

We must provide Ukraine with the weapons they need to defeat Putin. But we also have an obligation to humankind to minimize sparking a nuclear exchange.

The no-fly zone idea was utter madness.

[speak easy]

9. and every day is WWIII

so say you

[Gaugamela]

12. Actually, it's not. We'll all know when we get there, and it will be a shock to

most Americans when the bombs go off here. Like those idiots who thought they’d enjoy a picnic at the Battle of Bull Run.

[James48]

15. WW III has already started.

It kicked off in 2014 with Crimea.

We’re already well into the first quarter, and the score is pretty much tied at the moment.

There is no doubt that this likely will be a long, long game.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

17. No, everyday is NOT WWIII and I'd like to keep it that way.

Last edited Mon Oct 10, 2022, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

We can (should, and are) helping the Ukrainians defeat Putin's forces.

We don't want to act so that we provoke a hot war between the US/NATO and Russia.That would be irrational.

[Gaugamela]

11. +1

[PortTack]

24. Yes..they should have. There would have been a lot less death and destruction and the war may

Have even been over by now!

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. I'd suppose that's in the works as we speak.

[BeyondGeography]

4. ATACMS

Zelensky has even offered to share targets with us beforehand to address our stated fear that UA would use them to hit targets within Russia. Our continued reluctance to give them this weapon indicates that we are willing to extend the conflict to minimize what we perceive to be our own risk at the expense of Ukraine.

Not trying to be overly dramatic here; without US leadership Putin would have triumphed a long time ago. Because of it, he will lose. But last night should have changed the calculus on heavier weapons.

[speak easy]

5. + yes

[Lonestarblue]

13. Give Ukraine everything they need. Russia must be stopped in its tracks now.

A few more big blows like the Kerch bridge and more ground retaken by Ukrainians might be a big game changer.

My fear is that Putin has now put a butcher of a general in charge of the Ukraine attack, and he is known for brutality against civilians, as in using nerve gas on civilians in Syria to prop up the Assad dictator. I think he was also one of the key generals in Chechnya where Russians were known for really excessive brutality and inhumane treatment of civilians and soldiers alike.

It will be demoralizing if Russia is able to attack multiple Ukrainian cities simultaneously because they have no air support to stop them. They desperately need that support now. It is what Zelensky has been asking of the West for months. It’s time we gave it to them. Anyone who thinks the threat of Russia using a nuclear weapon will go away by appeasing him by not providing air support is just not seeing him as the bully he is. Appeasing a bully just leads to worse bullying.

And Putin is more likely to use chemical weapons first because they have used them in other attacks, another horrific red line that should bring NATO into the conflict immediately.

[James48]

16. They are already in Ukraine.

But give them some time. Gotta work up to that from the HIMARS. It’s another software system for them to learn. And will take some time.

[BeyondGeography]

23. Hope that's true but all the reporting says they still lack them

An NYT story from last week being the latest example. And after this latest escalation you still have very informed people pushing publicly for ATACMS so I’m assuming it’s still an ask.

[Lunabell]

6. I agree!

I am sick and tired of appeasing fascists!! Hasn't anyone learned that you give these monsters an inch they take more than a damned mile!!! That also goes for the christo-fascist republicans! I am tired of appeasing them.

Goddammit, I want to fight these bastards. I'm 60 years old and would knit uniforms or cook meals for the troops if those violent fascists try a civil war. Their support for putin makes me need to vomit! 🤢

[speak easy]

7. "I'm 60 years old and ..."

you and me both. Slava Ukraini !

[Lunabell]

10. I'd actually join a fight if my failing knees would let me.

Can't even march in protests anymore. But I damn sure have been writing postcards and phone banking for the Democrats in Florida.

I am livid about what's going on. I'm mad as hell! And I'm feeling like if they, the GQPers, bring the violence, I'm going to respond in kind. I'm too old to placate. I don't have much time left on this dying planet, so I'm like, what have I got to lose? Come at me, motherfuckers!! I'm serious, too. Oh, I am not really a violent person at all, I'm just a survivor.

[roamer65]

14. Tactical nuclear (fission) weapons.

We need to make them a nuclear state overnight.

That would be the end of this war if Putler knew Ukraine could vaporize Moscow.

[orangecrush]

18. KICK

[David__77]

19. No way.

…

[OtterDave]

20. Totally agree!

Wars are political. Imagining another president in power... And what we would be saying. I tend to stick with being anti-war.

[wnylib]

21. I'm opposed to starting wars.

But I am not opposed to self defense.

[yaesu]

22. We need to declare officially that Russia and now Belarus are terrorist states. nt