2024

[KUTradition]

that’s a minor fact in this matter

[ousdahl]

Sigh.

Of course Russia invaded Ukraine!

But the question was not about whether Russia invaded Ukraine.

The question was about why we should assume the US war machine rhetoric to be so credible.

Cuz, one thing about the US war machine rhetoric, is its move to reduce the whole understanding of the Ukraine war to, “but THEY started it!”

That’s all to ignore all the analysis that led up to it, all the analysis that might end it, all the analysis about how war machine rhetoric works, and all the other pesky little details about which you guys have so stubbornly buried your otherwise brilliant heads in the sand.

Cuz, that’s the thing about war machine rhetoric! It conditions you to think of these complex geopolitical issues in absolutes and oversimplifications and good-guy-bad-guy comic book storylines; not to mention the insistence that thinking of these things as anything but, must be, by default, bad guy propaganda.

Put another way - if I were to ask the exact same question 20 years ago, your answer would be little more than, “but there’s WMDs in Iraq!”

I guess questioning that US invasion back then would have just got me labeled as a Saddam puppet, huh.

[ousdahl]

And, excuse the consecutive posts, but - in an attempt to keep this thread on topic…

Considering the tens of bajillions of dollars the current administration is just blindly throwing at Ukraine, not to mention the other potential consequences of perpetuation and escalation, I think the issue should very much be a part of platforms in ‘24.

So, perhaps we should weigh the pros and cons of the GOP candidate at-large likely taking a “dial it down in Ukraine” stance, versus Biden continuing to double down on, “…no matter how long it takes!”

[KUTradition]

what’s russia been doing to it’s neighbors since the fall of the soviet union?

pot, meet kettle

[KUTradition]

and honestly, i don’t think any of us are burying our heads in the sand at all

rather, we are of the opinion that all of your “issues” are secondary to russia invading Ukraine

to me, it’s just THAT simple and straightforward

[TDub]

Sigh.

Of course Russia invaded Ukraine!

But the question was not about whether Russia invaded Ukraine.

The question was about why we should assume the US war machine rhetoric to be so credible.

Cuz, one thing about the US war machine rhetoric, is its move to reduce the whole understanding of the Ukraine war to, “but THEY started it!”

That’s all to ignore all the analysis that led up to it, all the analysis that might end it, all the analysis about how war machine rhetoric works, and all the other pesky little details about which you guys have so stubbornly buried your otherwise brilliant heads in the sand.

Cuz, that’s the thing about war machine rhetoric! It conditions you to think of these complex geopolitical issues in absolutes and oversimplifications and good-guy-bad-guy comic book storylines; not to mention the insistence that thinking of these things as anything but, must be, by default, bad guy propaganda.

Put another way - if I were to ask the exact same question 20 years ago, your answer would be little more than, “but there’s WMDs in Iraq!”

I guess questioning that US invasion back then would have just got me labeled as a Saddam puppet, huh.

this is just incorrect plain and simple.

I think there was a lot of resistance to the Iraq situation. I believe there were many of us that did not believe there were actually WMDs in Iraq.

Talk about oversimplifying things.....you just lumped a whole lot of people into the same barrel based on nothing but an assumption because of a completely different situation.

You like simple things. Ok.

could the whole world see WMDs? nope. they could not.

can the whole world see Russian military on the wrong side of the Ukrainian border and actively killing civilians and creating dangerous situations with infrastructure and Nuclear plants? Yes. Yea they can.

[jfish26]

And, excuse the consecutive posts, but - in an attempt to keep this thread on topic…

Considering the tens of bajillions of dollars the current administration is just blindly throwing at Ukraine, not to mention the other potential consequences of perpetuation and escalation, I think the issue should very much be a part of platforms in ‘24.

So, perhaps we should weigh the pros and cons of the GOP candidate at-large likely taking a “dial it down in Ukraine” stance, versus Biden continuing to double down on, “…no matter how long it takes!”

If you accept the premise that it is right for us to intervene by providing materials and non-combat support, then I think you will struggle to find informed people who think it’s smart at this stage to throttle what you determine to provide.

[ousdahl]

see, I guess I struggle to accept that premise.

lean more toward the premise that providing materials and non-combat support (which is small compared to the vast majority of our support, which as been "lethal") was material to escalating the situation to the point of Russia invading.

Not that means it's ok for Russia to invade!

I just think it wasn't necessarily ever ok for the US to give guns to Russia's militant extremist neighbors, either.

but, fuck it, let's accept that premise. So, why now? Why here? Why Ukraine the past decade or so? Particaurly to the exclusion of all the other geopolitical conflicts all over the planet at any other given time and place? Is it *really* America's responsibility to play world police? Particularly in a pick-and-choose kinda way?*

I also think any U.S. leader with half a shred of diplomacy could potentially use "throttling" what we provide as a bargaining chip to deescalate, rather than continuing to smash that throttle to the floor in a way that otherwise only escalates and perpetuates.


*espeically when that pick-and-choose basically comes down to, what can intervening do for Halliburton?

[jfish26]

see, I guess I struggle to accept that premise.

lean more toward the premise that providing materials and non-combat support (which is small compared to the vast majority of our support, which as been "lethal") was material to escalating the situation to the point of Russia invading.

Not that means it's ok for Russia to invade!

I just think it wasn't necessarily ever ok for the US to give guns to Russia's militant extremist neighbors, either.

but, fuck it, let's accept that premise. So, why now? Why here? Why Ukraine the past decade or so? Particaurly to the exclusion of all the other geopolitical conflicts all over the planet at any other given time and place? Is it *really* America's responsibility to play world police? Particularly in a pick-and-choose kinda way?*

I also think any U.S. leader with half a shred of diplomacy could potentially use "throttling" what we provide as a bargaining chip to deescalate, rather than continuing to smash that throttle to the floor in a way that otherwise only escalates and perpetuates.


*espeically when that pick-and-choose basically comes down to, what can intervening do for Halliburton?

In my opinion, there is not - all things considered - really a reasonable “no” to the question of whether we should provide materials (including lethal materials) and non-combat support.

[ousdahl]

and honestly, i don’t think any of us are burying our heads in the sand at all

rather, we are of the opinion that all of your “issues” are secondary to russia invading Ukraine

to me, it’s just THAT simple and straightforward

I was gonna quote both of your posts but lemme just respond to both here.

there's a number of ways you could boil that pot/kettle rhetorical question. One is something on the question of Team America World Police.

One is simply inverting that question to, "what's the United States been doing to (Russia's) neighbors?

since we're on the topic, let's focus on Ukraine. Do you really think the United States:

- campaigning for Ukraine to join NATO practically since the fall of the Soviet Union, and very explicitly for at least like 15 years now
- very possibly staging a coup in Ukraine
- whether we staged it or not, using that coup as an opportunity to parade McCain and Biden and our own leaders around Ukraine for pep rallies
- eventually providing more and more and more (overwhelmingly lethal) aid to Ukraine

...are only secondary to Russia invading Crimea literally the day after the coup in 2014, and eventually invading the rest of Ukraine now?

or, do you think the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine just sorta happened in a vacuum? without regard for cause and effect, just cuz like Putin woke up on the wrong side of the bed one day or something?

[ousdahl]

In my opinion, there is not - all things considered - really a reasonable “no” to the question of whether we should provide materials (including lethal materials) and non-combat support.

yea.

a better question is, whether we should have ever provided (overwhelmingly lethal) materials to Ukraine in the first place.

since we're all a little more comfortable with rhetorical questions again:

how would you feel if Russia started providing materials and support, lethal or otherwise, to like Mexico or Canada or Haiti or the Dominican Republic or *gasp* Cuba?

[randylahey]

The political farce/persecution of trump woke a lot of people up this week

[ousdahl]

Sigh.

Of course Russia invaded Ukraine!

But the question was not about whether Russia invaded Ukraine.

The question was about why we should assume the US war machine rhetoric to be so credible.

Cuz, one thing about the US war machine rhetoric, is its move to reduce the whole understanding of the Ukraine war to, “but THEY started it!”

That’s all to ignore all the analysis that led up to it, all the analysis that might end it, all the analysis about how war machine rhetoric works, and all the other pesky little details about which you guys have so stubbornly buried your otherwise brilliant heads in the sand.

Cuz, that’s the thing about war machine rhetoric! It conditions you to think of these complex geopolitical issues in absolutes and oversimplifications and good-guy-bad-guy comic book storylines; not to mention the insistence that thinking of these things as anything but, must be, by default, bad guy propaganda.

Put another way - if I were to ask the exact same question 20 years ago, your answer would be little more than, “but there’s WMDs in Iraq!”

I guess questioning that US invasion back then would have just got me labeled as a Saddam puppet, huh.

this is just incorrect plain and simple.

I think there was a lot of resistance to the Iraq situation. I believe there were many of us that did not believe there were actually WMDs in Iraq.

Talk about oversimplifying things.....you just lumped a whole lot of people into the same barrel based on nothing but an assumption because of a completely different situation.

You like simple things. Ok.

could the whole world see WMDs? nope. they could not.

can the whole world see Russian military on the wrong side of the Ukrainian border and actively killing civilians and creating dangerous situations with infrastructure and Nuclear plants? Yes. Yea they can.

how much resistance was there? Pretty sure the vote to invade Iraq passed both the house and senate by overwhelming majorities, even if there was any critical mass of constituents who objected. And, even as we failed to find WMDs and the whole situation smelled fishier and the whole issue of exactly what we were doing in iraq grew and opposition rose, we still managed to just kinda Dick (Cheney) around there for damn near a decade...even as we dicked around in Afghanistan too before, during, and after...not even to mention all the other military dicking around Merica was committing throughout all that, before during, and after; in places like...oh, let's say...Ukraine.....

[ousdahl]

and, again trying to stay on topic:

what's the Ukraine issue gonna look like, say, a year from now? Even on the coattails of Afghanistan, have we all accepted this is gonna just continue to drag on and on and on?

more importantly (to this thread, at least), what's this gonna look like in November 2024?

if Biden looses the election, and many pundits say "well it turns out many voters say they once again felt generally weary of endless war," well...

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

The political farce/persecution of trump woke a lot of people up this week

He's not lying. He did run for Governor of New York. He's going to be selling the shirt/s soon.
Would it be wrong if I bought one and wore it?

[jfish26]

The political farce/persecution of trump woke a lot of people up this week

Assuming Trump is the R nominee on Election Day, I’ll bet you $100 to the 501(c)(3) of the winner’s choosing that Trump’s 2024 margins of defeat (both popular and electoral college) are greater (worse) as compared with 2020.

You game?

[randylahey]

The political farce/persecution of trump woke a lot of people up this week

Assuming Trump is the R nominee on Election Day, I’ll bet you $100 to the 501(c)(3) of the winner’s choosing that Trump’s 2024 margins of defeat (both popular and electoral college) are greater (worse) as compared with 2020.

You game?

A little early for that. We don't technically know if trump or biden with both actually be the nominee yet lol

[jfish26]

The political farce/persecution of trump woke a lot of people up this week

Assuming Trump is the R nominee on Election Day, I’ll bet you $100 to the 501(c)(3) of the winner’s choosing that Trump’s 2024 margins of defeat (both popular and electoral college) are greater (worse) as compared with 2020.

You game?

A little early for that. We don't technically know if trump or biden with both actually be the nominee yet lol

The words I wrote stand for themselves. Game or no?

[randylahey]

Assuming Trump is the R nominee on Election Day, I’ll bet you $100 to the 501(c)(3) of the winner’s choosing that Trump’s 2024 margins of defeat (both popular and electoral college) are greater (worse) as compared with 2020.

You game?

A little early for that. We don't technically know if trump or biden with both actually be the nominee yet lol

The words I wrote stand for themselves. Game or no?

Nope. Too much time for too much potential bullshit to happen. I'm not betting on the 2024 superbowl winner right now either

[jfish26]

Ok. This is the last time I’ll offer the bet at $100. You can circle back after you’ve found some more videos, but it’ll be more expensive.