Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) hit the brakes Thursday on bipartisan hopes that the Senate could quickly pass nearly $40 billion in Ukraine aid before leaving town for the week.

Paul objected to a deal offered by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that would have set up votes on Thursday afternoon on the funding and on an amendment from Paul, who wanted to include language in the bill to expand an Afghanistan inspector general role to include oversight of the Ukraine funds.

Paul blocked the votes because he wants his language inserted into the text of the bill instead of having to take his chance with an amendment vote, which could be blocked. The stalemate will delay the Senate’s passage of the Ukraine package until at least next week, and potentially beyond.

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3486654 ... d-package/

Independently that we hate Putin for what he is doing in Ukraine, I think there is merit to this.

This bi-partisan effort to send 40 billion to Ukraine is just too much. And me thinks that the Military-Industrial complex is playing a great hand here. Again the powerful interests in this country have managed to buy the MSM and as a result public opinion and now the political class to go on with this huge amount money to send to Ukraine, on things we hardly know on what would be spent on.

And even if the money is spent to help, what chances are that Russia ends up with it, if they managed to take over Ukraine which at this point looks very difficult but still possible. Kind of what happened with Afghanistan and all the money that went to waste only to be on the hands of the Taliban.

I agree supporting Ukraine but I think there is merit into slowing this thing down, considering this country is headed straight to a recession and we are dealing with record inflation. Pumping more money out there, using the printing press won't help at all.

40 Billion is just too much.

You might have a point if it were 400 billion. The Florida State Retirement system has $36B in unfunded pension liabilities, for comparison. 40 billion will not be a blink in the eye of the national debt.

https://reason.org/commentary/the-flori ... of-reform/

Also Lockheed-Martin generates a lot of jobs in GA and CO - maybe you should take it up with the Senators from those states?

Aaron747 wrote:

You might have a point if it were 400 billion. The Florida State Retirement system has $36B in unfunded pension liabilities, for comparison. 40 billion will not be a blink in the eye of the national debt.

https://reason.org/commentary/the-flori ... of-reform/

Also Lockheed-Martin generates a lot of jobs in GA and CO - maybe you should take it up with the Senators from those states?

Who doesn't say this might be just the down payment, and in our interest of 'weakening Russia militarily' this is the beginning and we will eventually spend as much. And with the alacrity and speed and bipartisan union we have seen with this one, the Military Industrial complex might just be so happy to keep it going while we are at it.

My senators from Florida I am sure is keen on voting in favor of it, the entire political establishment is paid off already. Corruption is there.

Gotta admire Rand, like him or hate him, on this subject he does have some consistency.

40B is a lot, and 40B that we have to borrow, and we are headed towards a recession, which might allow for the conversation of 'stimulus' and you know the amount of money we are to lose in revenue as a result as well.

Aaron747 wrote:

You might have a point if it were 400 billion. The Florida State Retirement system has $36B in unfunded pension liabilities, for comparison. 40 billion will not be a blink in the eye of the national debt.

https://reason.org/commentary/the-flori ... of-reform/

Also Lockheed-Martin generates a lot of jobs in GA and CO - maybe you should take it up with the Senators from those states?

Our government has a long checkered history of throwing money around with no accountability including in our own country. Just look at all the fraud in the PPP loans during COVID or all the money we throw at countries with sketchy governments with no strings attached. 40B doesn't sound like much against a backdrop of the trillions we are in debt but we are just getting started. We just pulled out of Afgan where we were spending insane amounts of money and now it's been redirected to Ukraine. I want to know what Europe is throwing in the mix compared to the US since this is in their backyard. You know the industrial military complex in this country is alive and well and loves a war.

$40 billion to Ukraine is very cheap compared with the ongoing cost to the US defence budget if Russia takes over Ukraine and a much heightened security posture is required to deter further aggression.

stratosphere wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

You might have a point if it were 400 billion. The Florida State Retirement system has $36B in unfunded pension liabilities, for comparison. 40 billion will not be a blink in the eye of the national debt.

https://reason.org/commentary/the-flori ... of-reform/

Also Lockheed-Martin generates a lot of jobs in GA and CO - maybe you should take it up with the Senators from those states?

Our government has a long checkered history of throwing money around with no accountability including in our own country. Just look at all the fraud in the PPP loans during COVID or all the money we throw at countries with sketchy governments with no strings attached. 40B doesn't sound like much against a backdrop of the trillions we are in debt but we are just getting started. We just pulled out of Afgan where we were spending insane amounts of money and now it's been redirected to Ukraine. I want to know what Europe is throwing in the mix compared to the US since this is in their backyard. You know the industrial military complex in this country is alive and well and loves a war.

Money travels in circular fashion in a country the size of the US. How many people have LMT in their portfolios? Government is not the place to take this battle. If you don’t like what the MIC does, mount a public pressure campaign to stop them selling their wares overseas.

alanb976 wrote:

$40 billion to Ukraine is very cheap compared with the ongoing cost to the US defence budget if Russia takes over Ukraine and a much heightened security posture is required to deter further aggression.

We and the rest of the west should be ashamed of turning our backs and ignoring the low-level war that Russia has been perpetrating in Ukrain since 2014. Now that it has exploded (no irony intended) into full-scale combat, it is time to support the Ukrainians with whatever we can - and maybe even more than might have seemed judicious in the past. They are fighting a deranged dictator who thinks he can reproduce the Soviet Union in contemporary times, and that is a vision that would be far more costly to us than this drop in the bucket.

Ron Paul has an ego and an ambition as big as Putin's, and in the race to get as much TV time as possible, he is battling Cruz, DeSantis, Hawley, and a few of the other wing-nuts of the G.O.P. If he doesn't want to spend the money, then let him help another way; let's see if he volunteers to put on a uniform and face up to the threat that Putin and his ilk present.

Talk is cheap, Ron. Put up or shut up.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

You might have a point if it were 400 billion. The Florida State Retirement system has $36B in unfunded pension liabilities, for comparison. 40 billion will not be a blink in the eye of the national debt.

https://reason.org/commentary/the-flori ... of-reform/

Also Lockheed-Martin generates a lot of jobs in GA and CO - maybe you should take it up with the Senators from those states?

Who doesn't say this might be just the down payment, and in our interest of 'weakening Russia militarily' this is the beginning and we will eventually spend as much. And with the alacrity and speed and bipartisan union we have seen with this one, the Military Industrial complex might just be so happy to keep it going while we are at it.

My senators from Florida I am sure is keen on voting in favor of it, the entire political establishment is paid off already. Corruption is there.

Gotta admire Rand, like him or hate him, on this subject he does have some consistency.

40B is a lot, and 40B that we have to borrow, and we are headed towards a recession, which might allow for the conversation of 'stimulus' and you know the amount of money we are to lose in revenue as a result as well.

It costs $25-30B annually to base US troops overseas. You wanna stop that too while we’re at it?

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

You might have a point if it were 400 billion. The Florida State Retirement system has $36B in unfunded pension liabilities, for comparison. 40 billion will not be a blink in the eye of the national debt.

https://reason.org/commentary/the-flori ... of-reform/

Also Lockheed-Martin generates a lot of jobs in GA and CO - maybe you should take it up with the Senators from those states?

Who doesn't say this might be just the down payment, and in our interest of 'weakening Russia militarily' this is the beginning and we will eventually spend as much. And with the alacrity and speed and bipartisan union we have seen with this one, the Military Industrial complex might just be so happy to keep it going while we are at it.

My senators from Florida I am sure is keen on voting in favor of it, the entire political establishment is paid off already. Corruption is there.

Gotta admire Rand, like him or hate him, on this subject he does have some consistency.

40B is a lot, and 40B that we have to borrow, and we are headed towards a recession, which might allow for the conversation of 'stimulus' and you know the amount of money we are to lose in revenue as a result as well.

It costs $25-30B annually to base US troops overseas. You wanna stop that too while we’re at it?

The main difference is that those are US troops. Whereas this money is being shipped to the Ukrainian government. Who might, collapse in this war and go directly to the hands of Putin.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Who doesn't say this might be just the down payment, and in our interest of 'weakening Russia militarily' this is the beginning and we will eventually spend as much. And with the alacrity and speed and bipartisan union we have seen with this one, the Military Industrial complex might just be so happy to keep it going while we are at it.

My senators from Florida I am sure is keen on voting in favor of it, the entire political establishment is paid off already. Corruption is there.

Gotta admire Rand, like him or hate him, on this subject he does have some consistency.

40B is a lot, and 40B that we have to borrow, and we are headed towards a recession, which might allow for the conversation of 'stimulus' and you know the amount of money we are to lose in revenue as a result as well.

It costs $25-30B annually to base US troops overseas. You wanna stop that too while we’re at it?

The main difference is that those are US troops. Whereas this money is being shipped to the Ukrainian government. Who might, collapse in this war and go directly to the hands of Putin.

The Saudi government could also collapse due to popular uprising. Should we stop buying their oil then?

This line of reasoning is silly. We supported a lot of governments with various types of aid all through the Cold War - some made it, some didn’t. That’s geopolitics.

stratosphere wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

You might have a point if it were 400 billion. The Florida State Retirement system has $36B in unfunded pension liabilities, for comparison. 40 billion will not be a blink in the eye of the national debt.

https://reason.org/commentary/the-flori ... of-reform/

Also Lockheed-Martin generates a lot of jobs in GA and CO - maybe you should take it up with the Senators from those states?

Our government has a long checkered history of throwing money around with no accountability including in our own country. Just look at all the fraud in the PPP loans during COVID or all the money we throw at countries with sketchy governments with no strings attached. 40B doesn't sound like much against a backdrop of the trillions we are in debt but we are just getting started. We just pulled out of Afgan where we were spending insane amounts of money and now it's been redirected to Ukraine. I want to know what Europe is throwing in the mix compared to the US since this is in their backyard. You know the industrial military complex in this country is alive and well and loves a war.

You got it right, they Afghanistan was their cash cow, now the military industrial complex has their sights in Ukraine.

I thought Bernie Sanders was another consistent Senator, but that one was bought as well.

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

It costs $25-30B annually to base US troops overseas. You wanna stop that too while we’re at it?

The main difference is that those are US troops. Whereas this money is being shipped to the Ukrainian government. Who might, collapse in this war and go directly to the hands of Putin.

The Saudi government could also collapse due to popular uprising. Should we stop buying their oil then?

This line of reasoning is silly. We supported a lot of governments with various types of aid all through the Cold War - some made it, some didn’t. That’s geopolitics.

You just gave an argument on why we should be energy independent. Which we were till Biden came in with his policies.

We are literally sending 40B to the government of Ukraine, who is under attack by a larger more powerful military force. What could go wrong?

Not sending it increases the risk that Ukraine DOES collapse.

bennett123 wrote:

Not sending it increases the risk that Ukraine DOES collapse.

I am old enough to remember that despite billions, Afghanistan collapsed.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

You just gave an argument on why we should be energy independent. Which we were till Biden came in with his policies.

I read some asinine comments in this forum but some jump the couch to another level. Where do you get your talking points?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil ... %20imports.

wingman wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

You just gave an argument on why we should be energy independent. Which we were till Biden came in with his policies.

I read some asinine comments in this forum but some jump the couch to another level. Where do you get your talking points?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil ... %20imports.

According to your data, net imports were negative in 2020. So we were exporting more than what we were importing in 2020. That's energy independent.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

We are literally sending 40B to the government of Ukraine, who is under attack by a larger more powerful military force. What could go wrong?

Oh, I don't know, maybe you should ask Putin...

bennett123 wrote:

Not sending it increases the risk that Ukraine DOES collapse.

If we care so much then take out Putin and give Ukraine some troop and air support to get the rest of Russia out of their country. This is BS. What's next 100 Billion?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

wingman wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

You just gave an argument on why we should be energy independent. Which we were till Biden came in with his policies.

I read some asinine comments in this forum but some jump the couch to another level. Where do you get your talking points?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil ... %20imports.

According to your data, net imports were negative in 2020. So we were exporting more than what we were importing in 2020. That's energy independent.

The trend towards that 2020 result started when Obama was President though I doubt, much like Trump, that any specific policies he enacted contributed toward the trend of your farcical energy "independence". Two things: first, you missed 2021 which despite Trump and the GOP's best efforts, still had Biden in office. Second, we're still importing a whole mess-load of crude oil to refine the product that we export. There's no such thing as energy "independence", just interdependence in a massively complex and global energy market. If you'd spend even 1/10th of the time you're here parroting the drivel you see on television on sources of truth like the one I posted you'd educate yourself. That wasn't "my" data I posted. Go check the source and at least make an attempt at coherence.

NIKV69 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Not sending it increases the risk that Ukraine DOES collapse.

If we care so much then take out Putin and give Ukraine some troop and air support to get the rest of Russia out of their country. This is BS. What's next 100 Billion?

Now that I'm here trying to help Airworthy, which may be a hopeless cause, let me turn my caresses to you NIK. You'd rather not spend $10B helping Ukraine in what is thus far an excellent return on investment and instead you'd rather go straight to $1T-$4T on all warfare between the US, Russia and NATO. Not even Tucker is talking crap this moronic these days so I can't understand where you get the idea. Did you invent it by yourself or pull it out of a fortune cookie?

NIKV69 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Not sending it increases the risk that Ukraine DOES collapse.

If we care so much then take out Putin and give Ukraine some troop and air support to get the rest of Russia out of their country. This is BS. What's next 100 Billion?

LOL ‘take out Putin’...mmkay sure, how, exactly, oh great global strategist, you? And once that’s done, replace with who/what? And how will other countries react? Yeah, not well thought through aye?

In Afghanistan the money was disappearing in the sand and there was no end in sight. So far in Ukraine we see what the money is doing (well not actual money, but stuff bought with money).

I would be more worried when it's time to build back, then I would hope some kind of troika like for Greece would be involved.

Aaron747 wrote:

LOL ‘take out Putin’...mmkay sure, how, exactly, oh great global strategist, you? And once that’s done, replace with who/what? And how will other countries react? Yeah, not well thought through aye?

Oh yea lets just leave things as they are so Ukraine will have to live with Russian occupation for years. I would think a dead Putin would illicit a positive reaction to other countries and maybe Russia would replace with someone better? Why is it your doom and gloom scenario has to be what will happen? Not too thought out at all as usual and let's just recite what the MSM tells us.

Aesma wrote:

In Afghanistan the money was disappearing in the sand and there was no end in sight. So far in Ukraine we see what the money is doing (well not actual money, but stuff bought with money).

I would be more worried when it's time to build back, then I would hope some kind of troika like for Greece would be involved.

What are we seeing? What is the money doing? When will be the time to build back? Can you tell me when Russia won't be occupying Ukraine any more?

Yea there we go, let’s start assassinating foreign leaders. Surely that won’t backfire at all. After all, nothing unites a people like national tragedy, specifically one caused by your biggest rival.

I’d say the money is being used pretty well given the way Ukraine has pushed quite a few Russian forces back to the border.

NIKV69 wrote:

Oh yea lets just leave things as they are so Ukraine will have to live with Russian occupation for years. I would think a dead Putin would illicit a positive reaction to other countries and maybe Russia would replace with someone better? Why is it your doom and gloom scenario has to be what will happen? Not too thought out at all as usual and let's just recite what the MSM tells us.

How many Russians do you know, like from Russia? Ask them how that would go over.

And do you think assassinating the leader of a major power would have no knock-on effects? Yeah I can see the PRC totally being mum on that - if that’s the new way of things they’ll just see fit to take out Modi in India and anyone else in Africa or South Asia they find an impediment to their economic plans. Great precedent dude.

I would stick to whatever your dayjob is.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LOL ‘take out Putin’...mmkay sure, how, exactly, oh great global strategist, you? And once that’s done, replace with who/what? And how will other countries react? Yeah, not well thought through aye?

Oh yea lets just leave things as they are so Ukraine will have to live with Russian occupation for years. I would think a dead Putin would illicit a positive reaction to other countries and maybe Russia would replace with someone better? Why is it your doom and gloom scenario has to be what will happen? Not too thought out at all as usual and let's just recite what the MSM tells us.

Aesma wrote:

In Afghanistan the money was disappearing in the sand and there was no end in sight. So far in Ukraine we see what the money is doing (well not actual money, but stuff bought with money).

I would be more worried when it's time to build back, then I would hope some kind of troika like for Greece would be involved.

What are we seeing? What is the money doing? When will be the time to build back? Can you tell me when Russia won't be occupying Ukraine any more?

Well, you obviously will see only what suits your agenda for this topic, but the rest of us see masses of Russian tanks going boom, oil and ammunition depots exploding, helicopters and planes getting shot down. Oh and a nice big ship turned into a diving monument. Not bad…

Eventually Putin will have to bail out when the losses become too great. Or Putin himself may become too sick to continue.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) hit the brakes Thursday on bipartisan hopes that the Senate could quickly pass nearly $40 billion in Ukraine aid before leaving town for the week.

Paul objected to a deal offered by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that would have set up votes on Thursday afternoon on the funding and on an amendment from Paul, who wanted to include language in the bill to expand an Afghanistan inspector general role to include oversight of the Ukraine funds.

Paul blocked the votes because he wants his language inserted into the text of the bill instead of having to take his chance with an amendment vote, which could be blocked. The stalemate will delay the Senate’s passage of the Ukraine package until at least next week, and potentially beyond.

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3486654 ... d-package/

Independently that we hate Putin for what he is doing in Ukraine, I think there is merit to this.

This bi-partisan effort to send 40 billion to Ukraine is just too much. And me thinks that the Military-Industrial complex is playing a great hand here. Again the powerful interests in this country have managed to buy the MSM and as a result public opinion and now the political class to go on with this huge amount money to send to Ukraine, on things we hardly know on what would be spent on.

And even if the money is spent to help, what chances are that Russia ends up with it, if they managed to take over Ukraine which at this point looks very difficult but still possible. Kind of what happened with Afghanistan and all the money that went to waste only to be on the hands of the Taliban.

I agree supporting Ukraine but I think there is merit into slowing this thing down, considering this country is headed straight to a recession and we are dealing with record inflation. Pumping more money out there, using the printing press won't help at all.

40 Billion is just too much.

The wingnuts--especially diseased poodle Rand--always whining about communism and socialism sure seem to get rul quiet when it comes to actual communists and socialists threatening liberal democracy.

Can't imagine why.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Not sending it increases the risk that Ukraine DOES collapse.

I am old enough to remember that despite billions, Afghanistan collapsed.

Republicans lost Afghanistan in the first few weeks of their phony war. Everyone since then was just trying to keep the bandaid from inevitably falling off.

Good for You Rand Paul !!! I don't always agree with you, but I do here...
$40Billion today... and how much tomorrow??? Another Afghanistan... No Thanks!!!!
China is our main adversary on the world stage. Not Russia !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2uV4Q9R0bk

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Good for You Rand Paul !!! I don't always agree with you, but I do here...
$40Billion today... and how much tomorrow??? Another Afghanistan... No Thanks!!!!
China is our main adversary on the world stage. Not Russia !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2uV4Q9R0bk

So, give us your five point plan to stop China.

And what do you do if Russia starts to play up again?

I could put the same questions to Comrade Rand Paul as well.

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Not sending it increases the risk that Ukraine DOES collapse.

If we care so much then take out Putin and give Ukraine some troop and air support to get the rest of Russia out of their country. This is BS. What's next 100 Billion?

LOL ‘take out Putin’...mmkay sure, how, exactly, oh great global strategist, you? And once that’s done, replace with who/what? And how will other countries react? Yeah, not well thought through aye?

Hardly surprising that some think James Bond is some guide to how intelligence agencies work, (MI6 are in reality Civil Servants), might as well think all that Marvel stuff is real, given the fantasy world those backing Rand ‘Bund’ Paul on here seem to live in, not surprising.
(Bet they don’t know what the ‘Bund’ was either, google it yourselves as the parallels are obvious, Paul like Putin butt kisser in Chief Trump on the wrong side of history and showing their true colors).
Polling shows the great majority of Americans support aid to Ukraine, so a bit like being pro choice too.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Good for You Rand Paul !!! I don't always agree with you, but I do here...
$40Billion today... and how much tomorrow??? Another Afghanistan... No Thanks!!!!
China is our main adversary on the world stage. Not Russia !!

The US and most of Europe is currently in a de facto proxy war with Russia. Sugar coat however you like but that is the reality.

Russia has invaded a sovereign European state.. we all know the rest. It is threatening world food shortages, it is a direct threat to your peace and ours.

The US is a world power, Europe is. Together we have to stop Russia in Ukraine today - since we clearly can't send our own troops, sending all the aid and equipment we can is the next best thing. Ignoring the war crimes the implications go far beyond what Afghanistan did. This is not another Afghanistan and any comparison is incredibly simplistic. The US can afford 40 billion, it's a drop in the ocean. Rand Paul's only interest is Rand Paul being on TV. You have options for the government to raise for funds to spend on what ever you want but you won't go that route because you have GOP and right leaning Dems who think it's ok to squeeze the middle and lower income earners whilst giving tax breaks to the wealthiest when at this time they should be paying more. That's an internal US budget / ideological issue. The money should and could be available.

China is indeed a major problem and are a potential ticking time bomb. But it is not the question of last month and this month, Ukraine and Russia is. Putin is his last years on this planet (his age and alledged health), he is unpredictable and dangerous. He needs to know where the line in the sand is and he needs to lose this one. He can play it at home however he wants and he will - but he cannot win it, because the repercussions for Eastern Europe and other bordering states in the future are huge.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

(snip)
China is our main adversary on the world stage. Not Russia !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2uV4Q9R0bk

The current and previous US president said that China is the main adversary, so Putin got into a fit and threw his toys out of the pram and wanted to be taken seriously and also wanted to play big.

Yes, economically and ideologically China is the main concern but it doesn't mean you ignore the natural resource rich and nuclear armed country when they invade another.

How I see it, Russia invading the Ukraine endangers the World food security and China invading Taiwan would endanger the technology security.

To the European posters who are criticizing Rand Paul and his slowing of this money, I ask.

Why can't the European nations then fund this or partially fund it? I just read they are sending 500 million. Whereas the US is sending 40 Billion. If this issue is such a serious problem for Europe why can't they put more money into this, why should the US tax payer have to carry the heavy cost and risk? In the past these same posters were against US intervention and foreign policies, now they seem very interested that the US gets involved and, not only that, but heavily involved.

Would be great if they could actually fund their own security or at the very least be as serious as they want us to be here in the US.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Good for You Rand Paul !!! I don't always agree with you, but I do here...
$40Billion today... and how much tomorrow??? Another Afghanistan... No Thanks!!!!
China is our main adversary on the world stage. Not Russia !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2uV4Q9R0bk

Here's a 6th grade geography lesson for you: Afghanistan and Ukraine are not in the same universe geopolitically. Like, not even close enough to say 'apples and oranges', because both are fruit.

Those saying good for Rand, $40 billion is too much need to read the full article posted in the opening post. Sen. Paul isn't objecting to the price tag (not in that article at least). "who wanted to include language in the bill to expand an Afghanistan inspector general role to include oversight of the Ukraine funds." "Under the deal offered by Schumer and McConnell, the Senate would have first voted on stand-alone legislation from Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) to establish a special inspector general for the Ukraine aid." Rand indeed just wants some free press time.

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3486654 ... d-package/

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Good for You Rand Paul !!! I don't always agree with you, but I do here...
$40Billion today... and how much tomorrow??? Another Afghanistan... No Thanks!!!!
China is our main adversary on the world stage. Not Russia !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2uV4Q9R0bk

Here's a 6th grade geography lesson for you: Afghanistan and Ukraine are not in the same universe geopolitically. Like, not even close enough to say 'apples and oranges', because both are fruit.

Afghanistan is and has been a lost cause. It's a country in name only. But apparently some folks in this thread don't easily recall historically what happens when Moscow goes on a shopping spree for Eastern and Central European governments. What's REALLY ironic is most of these people are typically conservatives who decry socialism and communism--but the party of Reagan is dead so I can't say I'm that surprised. It would seem quite a few people in those countries, however, are under no illusions about Moscow's intentions.

luckyone wrote:

Those saying good for Rand, $40 billion is too much need to read the full article posted in the opening post. Sen. Paul isn't objecting to the price tag (not in that article at least). "who wanted to include language in the bill to expand an Afghanistan inspector general role to include oversight of the Ukraine funds." "Under the deal offered by Schumer and McConnell, the Senate would have first voted on stand-alone legislation from Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) to establish a special inspector general for the Ukraine aid." Rand indeed just wants some free press time.

And as this thread exemplifies, his staff know he can get it from audiences light on world knowledge and detail in general.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

To the European posters who are criticizing Rand Paul and his slowing of this money, I ask.

Why can't the European nations then fund this or partially fund it? I just read they are sending 500 million. Whereas the US is sending 40 Billion. If this issue is such a serious problem for Europe why can't they put more money into this, why should the US tax payer have to carry the heavy cost and risk? In the past these same posters were against US intervention and foreign policies, now they seem very interested that the US gets involved and, not only that, but heavily involved.

Would be great if they could actually fund their own security or at the very least be as serious as they want us to be here in the US.

Europe has been sending plenty, in money, military training (since 2016) taken the main refugee burden and a lot of military equipment. Ever heard of NLAW, AT4, Panzerfaust 3, Carl Gustav RCL, Norwegian model LAWs, and others I have left out, such as the Spanish AT systems. US weapons brought for their militaries notably Javelin and Stinger. Starstreak/Marlet (those have no direct US counterparts), Brimstone missiles (ditto), Ceaser and Pzh2000 155mm SP guns, ammo for these and other 155mm guns as well as Russian caliber 122 and 152mm compatible with what Ukraine started with, there was a lot of former Russian stock in their inventories from howitzer ammo to T-72 tanks, RPG’s to MANPADs, piles of medical equipment, non lethal but vital equipment such as advanced sights, field rations, body armor etc.

Germany has upended its military and foreign policy largely established in 1949, with revisions when they were allowed only defensive armed forces from 1955, to assist Ukraine at far greater risk to their own economy and potentially security than the US. So expect some grinding of gears, nonetheless the Gerpard SP AA systems are also slated to be supplied after training. German troops also training Ukrainian artillerymen on the Pzh2000 systems.

All this is easily to find, just have to step out of a fantasy world and bother to look.
Or just be honest and admit whose team Rand Paul is backing.

GDB wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

To the European posters who are criticizing Rand Paul and his slowing of this money, I ask.

Why can't the European nations then fund this or partially fund it? I just read they are sending 500 million. Whereas the US is sending 40 Billion. If this issue is such a serious problem for Europe why can't they put more money into this, why should the US tax payer have to carry the heavy cost and risk? In the past these same posters were against US intervention and foreign policies, now they seem very interested that the US gets involved and, not only that, but heavily involved.

Would be great if they could actually fund their own security or at the very least be as serious as they want us to be here in the US.

Europe has been sending plenty, in money, military training (since 2016) taken the main refugee burden and a lot of military equipment. Ever heard of NLAW, AT4, Panzerfaust 3, Carl Gustav RCL, Norwegian model LAWs, and others I have left out, such as the Spanish AT systems. US weapons brought for their militaries notably Javelin and Stinger. Starstreak/Marlet (those have no direct US counterparts), Brimstone missiles (ditto), Ceaser and Pzh2000 155mm SP guns, ammo for these and other 155mm guns as well as Russian caliber 122 and 152mm compatible with what Ukraine started with, there was a lot of former Russian stock in their inventories from howitzer ammo to T-72 tanks, RPG’s to MANPADs, piles of medical equipment, non lethal but vital equipment such as advanced sights, field rations, body armor etc.

Germany has upended its military and foreign policy largely established in 1949, with revisions when they were allowed only defensive armed forces from 1955, to assist Ukraine at far greater risk to their own economy and potentially security than the US. So expect some grinding of gears, nonetheless the Gerpard SP AA systems are also slated to be supplied after training. German troops also training Ukrainian artillerymen on the Pzh2000 systems.

All this is easily to find, just have to step out of a fantasy world and bother to look.
Or just be honest and admit whose team Rand Paul is backing.

How much is 'plenty'. Is it half of the 40Billion? or 10 Billion? how much?

I just read today Europe will send 500 Million. The US by contrast is sending 80 times that with the 40 billion. Telling me all they are doing is not the same.

Why can't Europe pay up and put up, why should the US again front their security much more than they are willing to do so at the expense of the American taxpayer?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

GDB wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

To the European posters who are criticizing Rand Paul and his slowing of this money, I ask.

Why can't the European nations then fund this or partially fund it? I just read they are sending 500 million. Whereas the US is sending 40 Billion. If this issue is such a serious problem for Europe why can't they put more money into this, why should the US tax payer have to carry the heavy cost and risk? In the past these same posters were against US intervention and foreign policies, now they seem very interested that the US gets involved and, not only that, but heavily involved.

Would be great if they could actually fund their own security or at the very least be as serious as they want us to be here in the US.

Europe has been sending plenty, in money, military training (since 2016) taken the main refugee burden and a lot of military equipment. Ever heard of NLAW, AT4, Panzerfaust 3, Carl Gustav RCL, Norwegian model LAWs, and others I have left out, such as the Spanish AT systems. US weapons brought for their militaries notably Javelin and Stinger. Starstreak/Marlet (those have no direct US counterparts), Brimstone missiles (ditto), Ceaser and Pzh2000 155mm SP guns, ammo for these and other 155mm guns as well as Russian caliber 122 and 152mm compatible with what Ukraine started with, there was a lot of former Russian stock in their inventories from howitzer ammo to T-72 tanks, RPG’s to MANPADs, piles of medical equipment, non lethal but vital equipment such as advanced sights, field rations, body armor etc.

Germany has upended its military and foreign policy largely established in 1949, with revisions when they were allowed only defensive armed forces from 1955, to assist Ukraine at far greater risk to their own economy and potentially security than the US. So expect some grinding of gears, nonetheless the Gerpard SP AA systems are also slated to be supplied after training. German troops also training Ukrainian artillerymen on the Pzh2000 systems.

All this is easily to find, just have to step out of a fantasy world and bother to look.
Or just be honest and admit whose team Rand Paul is backing.

I just read today Europe will send 500 Million.

Twice mentioned. Twice unsourced. Source please.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

GDB wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

To the European posters who are criticizing Rand Paul and his slowing of this money, I ask.

Why can't the European nations then fund this or partially fund it? I just read they are sending 500 million. Whereas the US is sending 40 Billion. If this issue is such a serious problem for Europe why can't they put more money into this, why should the US tax payer have to carry the heavy cost and risk? In the past these same posters were against US intervention and foreign policies, now they seem very interested that the US gets involved and, not only that, but heavily involved.

Would be great if they could actually fund their own security or at the very least be as serious as they want us to be here in the US.

Europe has been sending plenty, in money, military training (since 2016) taken the main refugee burden and a lot of military equipment. Ever heard of NLAW, AT4, Panzerfaust 3, Carl Gustav RCL, Norwegian model LAWs, and others I have left out, such as the Spanish AT systems. US weapons brought for their militaries notably Javelin and Stinger. Starstreak/Marlet (those have no direct US counterparts), Brimstone missiles (ditto), Ceaser and Pzh2000 155mm SP guns, ammo for these and other 155mm guns as well as Russian caliber 122 and 152mm compatible with what Ukraine started with, there was a lot of former Russian stock in their inventories from howitzer ammo to T-72 tanks, RPG’s to MANPADs, piles of medical equipment, non lethal but vital equipment such as advanced sights, field rations, body armor etc.

Germany has upended its military and foreign policy largely established in 1949, with revisions when they were allowed only defensive armed forces from 1955, to assist Ukraine at far greater risk to their own economy and potentially security than the US. So expect some grinding of gears, nonetheless the Gerpard SP AA systems are also slated to be supplied after training. German troops also training Ukrainian artillerymen on the Pzh2000 systems.

All this is easily to find, just have to step out of a fantasy world and bother to look.
Or just be honest and admit whose team Rand Paul is backing.

How much is 'plenty'. Is it half of the 40Billion? or 10 Billion? how much?

I just read today Europe will send 500 Million. The US by contrast is sending 80 times that with the 40 billion. Telling me all they are doing is not the same.

Why can't Europe pay up and put up, why should the US again front their security much more than they are willing to do so at the expense of the American taxpayer?

If you haven't added up the cost of all the many years and items he just mentioned, then the rest of the comment is moot.

luckyone wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

GDB wrote:

Europe has been sending plenty, in money, military training (since 2016) taken the main refugee burden and a lot of military equipment. Ever heard of NLAW, AT4, Panzerfaust 3, Carl Gustav RCL, Norwegian model LAWs, and others I have left out, such as the Spanish AT systems. US weapons brought for their militaries notably Javelin and Stinger. Starstreak/Marlet (those have no direct US counterparts), Brimstone missiles (ditto), Ceaser and Pzh2000 155mm SP guns, ammo for these and other 155mm guns as well as Russian caliber 122 and 152mm compatible with what Ukraine started with, there was a lot of former Russian stock in their inventories from howitzer ammo to T-72 tanks, RPG’s to MANPADs, piles of medical equipment, non lethal but vital equipment such as advanced sights, field rations, body armor etc.

Germany has upended its military and foreign policy largely established in 1949, with revisions when they were allowed only defensive armed forces from 1955, to assist Ukraine at far greater risk to their own economy and potentially security than the US. So expect some grinding of gears, nonetheless the Gerpard SP AA systems are also slated to be supplied after training. German troops also training Ukrainian artillerymen on the Pzh2000 systems.

All this is easily to find, just have to step out of a fantasy world and bother to look.
Or just be honest and admit whose team Rand Paul is backing.

I just read today Europe will send 500 Million.

Twice mentioned. Twice unsourced. Source please.

Here you go

EU to send Ukraine another €500m of military aid

The European Union has pledged another €500m (£425m) in military assistance for Ukraine, the Reuters news agency reports.

Previous EU packages have funded military equipment and other provisions such as first aid kits and fuel.

The EU's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was also quoted by Reuters saying he was confident a deal could be reached in the coming days over a ban on buying Russian oil.

The 27-nation bloc has so far been unable to agree an embargo - with resistance coming from countries including Hungary, which is among Russia's top fuel buyers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61404062

As for adding aid, if you add all the aid the US has given since 2014, you will find that the US has vastly funded over Europe in Ukraine.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I just read today Europe will send 500 Million.

Twice mentioned. Twice unsourced. Source please.

Here you go

EU to send Ukraine another €500m of military aid

The European Union has pledged another €500m (£425m) in military assistance for Ukraine, the Reuters news agency reports.

Previous EU packages have funded military equipment and other provisions such as first aid kits and fuel.

The EU's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was also quoted by Reuters saying he was confident a deal could be reached in the coming days over a ban on buying Russian oil.

The 27-nation bloc has so far been unable to agree an embargo - with resistance coming from countries including Hungary, which is among Russia's top fuel buyers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61404062

As for adding aid, if you add all the aid the US has given since 2014, you will find that the US has vastly funded over Europe in Ukraine.

Thank you for the source. Your post then is misleading, as the source says an "additional." You said "I just read today Europe will send 500 Million." As to funding provided prior to the current conflict, happy to review sources you have for that too. Meanwhile, there's this: https://www.csis.org/analysis/not-contr ... raine-2014

luckyone wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Twice mentioned. Twice unsourced. Source please.

Here you go

EU to send Ukraine another €500m of military aid

The European Union has pledged another €500m (£425m) in military assistance for Ukraine, the Reuters news agency reports.

Previous EU packages have funded military equipment and other provisions such as first aid kits and fuel.

The EU's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was also quoted by Reuters saying he was confident a deal could be reached in the coming days over a ban on buying Russian oil.

The 27-nation bloc has so far been unable to agree an embargo - with resistance coming from countries including Hungary, which is among Russia's top fuel buyers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61404062

As for adding aid, if you add all the aid the US has given since 2014, you will find that the US has vastly funded over Europe in Ukraine.

Thank you for the source. Your post then is misleading, as the source says an "additional." You said "I just read today Europe will send 500 Million." As to funding provided prior to the current conflict, happy to review sources you have for that too. Meanwhile, there's this: https://www.csis.org/analysis/not-contr ... raine-2014

So please provide evidence or sources on my claim that the US is not funding much more than Europe with this 40 Billion, than Europe ever has.

I have seen other reports on which Europe has sent 500 million more, and another 550 million. With the 500 million today we are at the very least 1.55 billion. Lets say we missed something and there is another 500 million I have missed. Thats 2 Billion compared to the 40 Billion the US is sending.

Again, why should the US vastly spend on the security of Ukraine when its Europe that one that needs that the most, why can't Europe step up and spend. Why should I, an American taxpayer pay for this more than an European taxpayer.

I am all for helping out, but I am still wondering why I should put more than a French or German when its Russia who is closer to them and who is a much more of a threat to me. Why can't Europeans pay up more.

2 Billion won't cut it, and even if they manage to pay 20 billion, that's half of what this 40 B package is. Don't see the commitment here.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Here you go


https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61404062

As for adding aid, if you add all the aid the US has given since 2014, you will find that the US has vastly funded over Europe in Ukraine.

Thank you for the source. Your post then is misleading, as the source says an "additional." You said "I just read today Europe will send 500 Million." As to funding provided prior to the current conflict, happy to review sources you have for that too. Meanwhile, there's this: https://www.csis.org/analysis/not-contr ... raine-2014

So please provide evidence or sources on my claim that the US is not funding much more than Europe with this 40 Billion, than Europe ever has.

I have seen other reports on which Europe has sent 500 million more, and another 550 million. With the 500 million today we are at the very least 1.55 billion. Lets say we missed something and there is another 500 million I have missed. Thats 2 Billion compared to the 40 Billion the US is sending.

Again, why should the US vastly spend on the security of Ukraine when its Europe that one that needs that the most, why can't Europe step up and spend. Why should I, an American taxpayer pay for this more than an European taxpayer.

I am all for helping out, but I am still wondering why I should put more than a French or German when its Russia who is closer to them and who is a much more of a threat to me. Why can't Europeans pay up more.

2 Billion won't cut it, and even if they manage to pay 20 billion, that's half of what this 40 B package is. Don't see the commitment here.

The US hasn't sent the money yet. We don't know what else Europe may do, and it's clear that Europe to date has been the leader in Ukraine funding. So your outrage seems premature and is frankly a completely different point than the article you used to start this thread. In a couple months you may have more ground to stand on. We shall see.

luckyone wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Thank you for the source. Your post then is misleading, as the source says an "additional." You said "I just read today Europe will send 500 Million." As to funding provided prior to the current conflict, happy to review sources you have for that too. Meanwhile, there's this: https://www.csis.org/analysis/not-contr ... raine-2014

So please provide evidence or sources on my claim that the US is not funding much more than Europe with this 40 Billion, than Europe ever has.

I have seen other reports on which Europe has sent 500 million more, and another 550 million. With the 500 million today we are at the very least 1.55 billion. Lets say we missed something and there is another 500 million I have missed. Thats 2 Billion compared to the 40 Billion the US is sending.

Again, why should the US vastly spend on the security of Ukraine when its Europe that one that needs that the most, why can't Europe step up and spend. Why should I, an American taxpayer pay for this more than an European taxpayer.

I am all for helping out, but I am still wondering why I should put more than a French or German when its Russia who is closer to them and who is a much more of a threat to me. Why can't Europeans pay up more.

2 Billion won't cut it, and even if they manage to pay 20 billion, that's half of what this 40 B package is. Don't see the commitment here.

The US hasn't sent the money yet. We don't know what else Europe may do, and it's clear that Europe to date has been the leader in Ukraine funding. So your outrage seems premature and is frankly a completely different point than the article you used to start this thread. In a couple months you may have more ground to stand on. We shall see.

Well, I just found out that since Biden took over, they have sent 2 Billion in aid

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... r-ukraine/

Before the EU announced the 500 million today, the reports total around 1 billion euros the EU has sent. The US has vastly till this day foot the bill in Ukraine. Based on what's out there in the internet the US 2 Billion (since last year) and the EU recently 1B euros. That's half of what the US has spent.

My point is, why can't the Europeans pay more for this, why is it always the US having to come to the rescue of Europeans, they have sufficient money to actually even match the US on aid. Probably this might have never happened if Putin had seen Europe supporting seriously Ukraine. The US has had to pay up much more since 2014, that's pretty much obvious and now with this 40B we are still doing it.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So please provide evidence or sources on my claim that the US is not funding much more than Europe with this 40 Billion, than Europe ever has.

I have seen other reports on which Europe has sent 500 million more, and another 550 million. With the 500 million today we are at the very least 1.55 billion. Lets say we missed something and there is another 500 million I have missed. Thats 2 Billion compared to the 40 Billion the US is sending.

Again, why should the US vastly spend on the security of Ukraine when its Europe that one that needs that the most, why can't Europe step up and spend. Why should I, an American taxpayer pay for this more than an European taxpayer.

I am all for helping out, but I am still wondering why I should put more than a French or German when its Russia who is closer to them and who is a much more of a threat to me. Why can't Europeans pay up more.

2 Billion won't cut it, and even if they manage to pay 20 billion, that's half of what this 40 B package is. Don't see the commitment here.

The US hasn't sent the money yet. We don't know what else Europe may do, and it's clear that Europe to date has been the leader in Ukraine funding. So your outrage seems premature and is frankly a completely different point than the article you used to start this thread. In a couple months you may have more ground to stand on. We shall see.

Well, I just found out that since Biden took over, they have sent 2 Billion in aid

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... r-ukraine/

Before the EU announced the 500 million today, the reports total around 1 billion euros the EU has sent. The US has vastly till this day foot the bill in Ukraine. Based on what's out there in the internet the US 2 Billion (since last year) and the EU recently 1B euros. That's half of what the US has spent.

My point is, why can't the Europeans pay more for this, why is it always the US having to come to the rescue of Europeans, they have sufficient money to actually even match the US on aid. Probably this might have never happened if Putin had seen Europe supporting seriously Ukraine. The US has had to pay up much more since 2014, that's pretty much obvious and now with this 40B we are still doing it.

So you're just going to blah blah and not bother to tally up the years of support another poster mentioned because....feelings? Or something...

AirWorthy99 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So please provide evidence or sources on my claim that the US is not funding much more than Europe with this 40 Billion, than Europe ever has.

I have seen other reports on which Europe has sent 500 million more, and another 550 million. With the 500 million today we are at the very least 1.55 billion. Lets say we missed something and there is another 500 million I have missed. Thats 2 Billion compared to the 40 Billion the US is sending.

Again, why should the US vastly spend on the security of Ukraine when its Europe that one that needs that the most, why can't Europe step up and spend. Why should I, an American taxpayer pay for this more than an European taxpayer.

I am all for helping out, but I am still wondering why I should put more than a French or German when its Russia who is closer to them and who is a much more of a threat to me. Why can't Europeans pay up more.

2 Billion won't cut it, and even if they manage to pay 20 billion, that's half of what this 40 B package is. Don't see the commitment here.

The US hasn't sent the money yet. We don't know what else Europe may do, and it's clear that Europe to date has been the leader in Ukraine funding. So your outrage seems premature and is frankly a completely different point than the article you used to start this thread. In a couple months you may have more ground to stand on. We shall see.

Well, I just found out that since Biden took over, they have sent 2 Billion in aid

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... r-ukraine/

Before the EU announced the 500 million today, the reports total around 1 billion euros the EU has sent. The US has vastly till this day foot the bill in Ukraine. Based on what's out there in the internet the US 2 Billion (since last year) and the EU recently 1B euros. That's half of what the US has spent.

My point is, why can't the Europeans pay more for this, why is it always the US having to come to the rescue of Europeans, they have sufficient money to actually even match the US on aid. Probably this might have never happened if Putin had seen Europe supporting seriously Ukraine. The US has had to pay up much more since 2014, that's pretty much obvious and now with this 40B we are still doing it.

An arbitrary point of comparison, and the rest is factually incorrect based solely on that arbitrary point of comparison, and again not what your original point was. Your original point was getting caught up in the manufactured outrage. And now you're moving elsewhere.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

The US hasn't sent the money yet. We don't know what else Europe may do, and it's clear that Europe to date has been the leader in Ukraine funding. So your outrage seems premature and is frankly a completely different point than the article you used to start this thread. In a couple months you may have more ground to stand on. We shall see.

Well, I just found out that since Biden took over, they have sent 2 Billion in aid

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... r-ukraine/

Before the EU announced the 500 million today, the reports total around 1 billion euros the EU has sent. The US has vastly till this day foot the bill in Ukraine. Based on what's out there in the internet the US 2 Billion (since last year) and the EU recently 1B euros. That's half of what the US has spent.

My point is, why can't the Europeans pay more for this, why is it always the US having to come to the rescue of Europeans, they have sufficient money to actually even match the US on aid. Probably this might have never happened if Putin had seen Europe supporting seriously Ukraine. The US has had to pay up much more since 2014, that's pretty much obvious and now with this 40B we are still doing it.

So you're just going to blah blah and not bother to tally up the years of support another poster mentioned because....feelings? Or something...

Where have I said Europe is not helping? I am saying not at the same rate or at the same amount as the US when they should. That's all. If you are in agreement on the US footing the bill to secure Europe and they not committing as much, that's another topic. But as an American I would have thought you would like for them to be as serious and in it as we are. A fraction of the investment doesn't show any seriousness nor commitment.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Well, I just found out that since Biden took over, they have sent 2 Billion in aid

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... r-ukraine/

Before the EU announced the 500 million today, the reports total around 1 billion euros the EU has sent. The US has vastly till this day foot the bill in Ukraine. Based on what's out there in the internet the US 2 Billion (since last year) and the EU recently 1B euros. That's half of what the US has spent.

My point is, why can't the Europeans pay more for this, why is it always the US having to come to the rescue of Europeans, they have sufficient money to actually even match the US on aid. Probably this might have never happened if Putin had seen Europe supporting seriously Ukraine. The US has had to pay up much more since 2014, that's pretty much obvious and now with this 40B we are still doing it.

So you're just going to blah blah and not bother to tally up the years of support another poster mentioned because....feelings? Or something...

Where have I said Europe is not helping? I am saying not at the same rate or at the same amount as the US when they should. That's all. If you are in agreement on the US footing the bill to secure Europe and they not committing as much, that's another topic. But as an American I would have thought you would like for them to be as serious and in it as we are. A fraction of the investment doesn't show any seriousness nor commitment.

Ah, so you know the tally for the military assistance in reply 37 then? How much is it? Dollars or Euros...I'll leave that up to you.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

To the European posters who are criticizing Rand Paul and his slowing of this money, I ask.

Why can't the European nations then fund this or partially fund it? I just read they are sending 500 million. Whereas the US is sending 40 Billion. If this issue is such a serious problem for Europe why can't they put more money into this, why should the US tax payer have to carry the heavy cost and risk? In the past these same posters were against US intervention and foreign policies, now they seem very interested that the US gets involved and, not only that, but heavily involved.

Would be great if they could actually fund their own security or at the very least be as serious as they want us to be here in the US.

Europe has sent billions already.

The main difference between the US and Europe is that this war is impacting us greatly. Oil and gas prices are extremely high, gas is now being cut off by Russia, the euro is down making everything more expensive, some foodstuff are starting to be scarce...

I don't think the EU has asked the US to give 40 billions, that's entirely of your own making. And the right lobbyists of course.