Maybe, but I meant that such sentiments were often heard during the last cold war.
Almost certainly not. You can skip to the bottom if you don’t want the TL version:
My father was on Guam with the Seabees during World War II (but he didn’t see combat). I was born, let’s see, 52 days after the Korean War armistice. My next-oldest brother joined the Army, in, I think, 1962. He tried to volunteer for Vietnam so he could get out of Germany, but at the time, they were only sending observers and the like, and he was only a PFC, so he wasn’t eligible. As he was about to get out in 1965, he was told that, because they were by that time sending regular combat troops, he was now eligible to go, provided that he reenlisted. He declined.
I grew up watching the Vietnam War on TV, and watching the growing antiwar sentiment. I went through a teenage wannabe hippie/leftist phase, remnants of which lingered awhile. My dad said the reason I opposed the war was that I was chicken. In a dumbass move, I joined the Marine Corps to “show him.” This was 1971, and Marine ground forces were being pulled out of Vietnam. So I wound up being a peacetime grunt. Some years later, in a moment of extremely poor decision-making, I joined the Navy, and eventually wound up on a guided missile destroyer, which did a little tour of the Persian Gulf.
I’ve gone through a few phases about our involvements in these various hoo-raws.
In our first Iraq involvement, I remember James Baker saying we were going to war in Iraq for jobs. Mass death for American jobs. That sounded really ridiculous. I was in a uni at the time, and I remember being in one of the school’s cafeterias when it was announced over the public-address system that the war had begun. No one stopped their conversing and eating. They just carried on as if nothing unusual was happening. Some time later, I was talking to some acquaintances, and one of them ended the conversation by saying something like, “Well, I’m gonna go home and watch the war on TV.” So it was just another TV event to him, I guess.
For the second Iraq thing, I actually suspected, and still suspect, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but I didn’t care. I repeat, I didn’t care. I didn’t want us to go to war regardless of what Saddam had or didn’t have.
Anyway, to me, it almost seems as if the reasoning is, “We’ve got all these nice toys, we might as well use them.” The whole thing makes me wonder if maybe we’ll one day get around to using the really big toys.
TL;DR: Again, almost certainly not. I would almost certainly not be willing to back our country’s direct military involvement in this conflict.
4 Likes
3 Likes
Interesting reply 
Bitcoin shot up yesterday as Russians tried to get their money out of Rubles anyway they could.
1 Like
i’m of a different opinion, i dont really have time to go through your personal reasoning at the moment but i respect its what you believe in, and will read it properly later.
Briefly, i take the opposite view, and i’m by no way a warmonger.
i believe that Nato asked the Ukraine to give up its nukes with the promise of protecting it from Russian invasion, now is not a time to go back on the promise, just because it will hurt back home. We are asking Ukrainians to give up their life for their freedom but are not willing to support them in the conflict after taking away their deterent.
4 Likes
Yeah, I dunno. It’s a pretty common abbreviation. I’ve seen it used here before as well. Sorry you weren’t aware of it, I guess…what do you want me to say?
1 Like
We are supporting them with by now thousands of anti tank weapons, anti aircraft weapons etc
In my opinion if Nato puts troops on the ground or tried to implement a no fly zone then unless Putin is overthrown internally it goes nuclear fast.
1 Like
I’m just messing around as well
1 Like
I think you have a valid point, but I also think we shouldn’t have made that promise.
I wasn’t trying to ridicule you. I’m an old fart, so I’m frequently having to look up you guys’ abbreviations, along with a lot of other new stuff.
But that’s on me being an old fart, not on you guys. Apologies.
2 Likes
Oh I thought you were younger, sorry. Maybe that’s why prostate-specific antigen is coming up earlier in your search results…? 
2 Likes
I think we should have brought them into Nato, then took away the nukes so the alternate protection was already in place. but the past is gone and we are here now, so i think we have to at least keep our word, i do think boots on the ground is the very last thing and would lead to a full WW, but i dont think it should be taken off the table.
1 Like
That’s certainly something to think about.
1 Like
If we could have world peace and just invite Russia to join Nato, would that new organization be called Naruto?
4 Likes
It was one of my first results. 
And I do get disproportionate old-fart-related search results, to the point where I’m starting to wonder if the Intarwebs can read minds.
2 Likes
That’s like Obama’s vision of “peace” in which joint military exercises were held with the regime in Beijing. I think it’s safe to say that it’s not helpful.
Guy
By the way, both Napoleon and Hitler decided to invade Russia in June. Has Putin demonstrated enough times that the best time to start a military campaign in Russia is February?
1 Like
I know, I keep seeing people typing Nato instead of NATO, and just thought I could poke fun as well.
2 Likes
You’re wrong:
’ The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the [OSCE] conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.’
OTAN?