Kansas Crimson

with every passing day i care less and less and less.

I really don't want to bicker. To the degree I can be instrumental in avoiding any bickering, I hope I can be.

But, perhaps in another news cycle or with another commodity, this would be a bigger story?

If we were sending billions in...say, books, or medicine, or whatever...to some foreign gummint, but then having little if any idea what becomes of it, the internet deviants and malcontents would should could be railing about what a waste of taxpayer money it is.

but during a wartime narrative, with a country already conditioned to support the cause, we don't even think twice about throwing weapons at some end game we're not even sure of. Instead, we get "I care less and less" and also Whitesnake.

that's not to mention we're not even dealing with books or medicine here, we're dealing with "lethal aid." Something tells me all these guns and bombs aren't ending up in the hands of doctors and teachers.

Mich, just for a second pretend those billions of dollars of weapons handouts to who-knows-where-they-end-up were instead, like, food stamp handouts to a single mom...now are you outraged?

You do realize we send "books", medicine, etc to various countries all over the world, correct?

we have given something in the neighborhood of 1 billion dollars a day to the cause. if it were up to me i would shut that flow off.

our in country teet supplers do quit well for themselves. we are the most generous giving loving caring country on earth. by a wide margin.

lulz.

It's a real concern. It has worked out horribly in the past (Mujahideen, Iraq)... and also very well (Kurds vs ISIS).

I wouldn't assume that the risks and trade-offs are not being considered.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 11:59 am I really don't want to bicker. To the degree I can be instrumental in avoiding any bickering, I hope I can be.

But, perhaps in another news cycle or with another commodity, this would be a bigger story?

If we were sending billions in...say, books, or medicine, or whatever...to some foreign gummint, but then having little if any idea what becomes of it, the internet deviants and malcontents would should could be railing about what a waste of taxpayer money it is.

but during a wartime narrative, with a country already conditioned to support the cause, we don't even think twice about throwing weapons at some end game we're not even sure of. Instead, we get "I care less and less" and also Whitesnake.

that's not to mention we're not even dealing with books or medicine here, we're dealing with "lethal aid." Something tells me all these guns and bombs aren't ending up in the hands of doctors and teachers.

Mich, just for a second pretend those billions of dollars of weapons handouts to who-knows-where-they-end-up were instead, like, food stamp handouts to a single mom...now are you outraged?

In the massive coronavirus bills there was billions earmarked for sending money and items to other countries. Do you wanna show me and tell me the specifics about what all of that is for and where it goes after we send it?

yes?

ok show me

also not sure how else we could do it with regards to Ukraine.

Without boots on the ground (which we cannot do)to monitor and organize and confirm where that product is going what do you suggest is the solution.

maybe the solution is to not be indiscriminately pouring weapons into a corrupt foreign country in the first place?

and forgive me if I don't take the time to show you every single item in every single bill. But generally speaking, that's something that I think citizens are better off trying to pay attention to, rather than trying not to.

terrific non-answer.

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:51 pm terrific non-answer.

Always.

And i think we all agree there is no easy/perfect answer to this situation.

sounds like you have no idea where that other money is going either....but you'd be perfectly okay with letting Ukrainians get slaughtered.

Sigh.

I once again remember why we should all hope this thread just goes away.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:39 pm maybe the solution is to not be indiscriminately pouring weapons into a corrupt foreign country in the first place?

and forgive me if I don't take the time to show you every single item in every single bill. But generally speaking, that's something that I think citizens are better off trying to pay attention to, rather than trying not to.

There it is again.
Why do you say "indiscriminately"?
Why do you assume everyone else is stupid?

there what is again?

I used "indiscriminately" because the CNN article suggests we may not be the most discriminating in our procurement of arms to Ukraine. Is there another term you prefer?

I assume everyone else is stupid because have you met everyone else?

Something other than indiscriminately would work better...

in·dis·crim·i·nate
/ˌindəˈskrimənət/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
done at random or without careful judgment.
"the indiscriminate killing of civilians"
Similar:
nonselective
unselective
undiscriminating
uncritical
aimless
hit-or-miss
haphazard
random
unsystematic
unmethodical
wholesale
general
sweeping
blanket
broad-based
wide
catholic
eclectic
varied
miscellaneous
heterogeneous
motley
confused
chaotic
thoughtless
unthinking
unconsidered
casual
careless
promiscuous
Opposite:
selective
discriminating
systematic
(of a person) not using or exercising discrimination.
"she was indiscriminate with her affections"

Exactly Illy, the "without careful judgement". No Ous, there was not anything in the article that said that.

OK so should we review the article?

I used "indiscriminately" because the article suggests we may not be the most discriminating in our procurement of arms to Ukraine. The article offers other language like "black hole" "blind spot" "information gaps" "foggy" "I couldn't tell you where they are in Ukraine and whether the Ukrainians are using them"

the article also mentions examples of when arming foreign countries didn't go well before, ended up in the wrong hands, even ironically against us, mentions concerns raised about doing it in Ukraine too, mentions it'll likely to be trouble again down the line, again

then the article says we considered that, we really do, but just sort of shrug all that off in favor of continuing to just push weapons weapons weapons anyway, as fast as we can.

If you really insist on arguing that "indiscriminately" isn't the best term, then I'll ask again - is there another term you prefer? Do you mean to suggest that article suggests we are pumping weapons into Ukraine in a selective, carefully judged, or otherwise discriminating kind of way?

cuz otherwise, all this floundering about semantics, sheesh.