Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 5:17 pm 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 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 5:23 pm 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!”

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 6:16 pm 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?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 5:29 pm 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

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 6:23 pm
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.

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 6:10 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 5:17 pm 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.

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 6:35 pm The political farce/persecution of trump woke a lot of people up this week

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 6:35 pm The political farce/persecution of trump woke a lot of people up this week

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 7:44 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 6:35 pm 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 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 7:50 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 7:44 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 6:35 pm 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 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 7:53 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 7:50 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 7:44 pm

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?