Kansas Crimson

Overlander wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:13 pm 15 billion is sales?
Biden is gonna take salesman of the quarter.

At least, until Trump names himself Supreme Salesman of the Century.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 12:08 pm https://www.axios.com/2024/04/01/truman ... nniversary#

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 8:29 am Yea, hopefully the leadership of the free world can lead some free-world-agreeable end to the Ukraine war.

(Hopefully that was phrased well enough to not be knee-jerked as a Putin parrot again)

Back to the other big “war” being proxy-fought by the free world leadership:

Trad, what do you think of Biden salesmanning more and more weapons to an ally who’s using them to bomb foreign embassies and aid kitchens staffed by U.S. civilians?

I mean holy hell could you imagine the reaction if it was Russia perping that shit?!

[The] strategy that matters most for the Kremlin is not the military strategy, but rather the spread of disinformation that causes the West to back away and allow Russia to win. That disinformation operation echoes the Russian practice of getting a population to believe in a false reality so that voters will cast their ballots for the party of oligarchs. In this case, in addition to seeding the idea that Ukraine cannot win and that the Russian invasion was justified, the Kremlin is exploiting divisions already roiling U.S. politics.

It is, for example, playing on the American opposition to sending our troops to fight “forever” wars, a dislike ingrained in the population since the Vietnam War. But the U.S. is not fighting in Ukraine. Ukrainians are asking only for money and matériel, and their war is not a proxy war—they are fighting for their own reasons—although their victory could well prevent U.S. engagement elsewhere in the future. The Kremlin is also playing on the idea that aid to Ukraine is too expensive as the U.S. faces large budget deficits, but the U.S. contribution to Ukraine’s war effort in 2023 was less than 0.5% of the defense budget.

Russian propaganda is also changing key Western concepts of war, suggesting, for example, that Ukrainian surrender will bring peace when, in fact, the end of fighting will simply take away Ukrainians’ ability to protect themselves against Russian violence. The authors note that Russia is using Americans’ regard for peace, life, American interests, freedom of debate, and responsible foreign relations against the U.S.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:44 am While I think Russian disinformation is indeed a concern, I still think there’s some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held ant-war positions - and, even, the valid criticisms of U.S. militarism that comes with. (Heck, that article goes so far as to suggest concerns about U.S. budget deficits are actually just more Russian propaganda too!)

That compare/contrast with Vietnam seems flimsy too, since 1. For the longest time the U.S. wasn’t technically the ones fighting in Vietnam either, 2. The U.S., as DCHawq1 has pointed out, indeed IS fighting in Ukraine. (Among other reasons)

And sure Ukraine is indeed fighting for their own reasons. But to point to that as evidence it is NOT a proxy war, and the U.S. is NOT party to the conflict for reasons of our own, all seems misleading.

And it also may be misleading to state as some foregone conclusion that “Ukrainian surrender will bring peace when, in fact, the end of fighting will simply take away Ukrainians’ ability to protect themselves against Russian violence.” Seems kinda like oversimplified good guy bad guy rhetoric, again.

Now quick, somebody call me a Putin parrot! While also ignoring all the other inconvenient truths that don’t jive with your world views!

(Still waiting on trad’s take regarding U.S. weapons to allies bombing embassies and humanitarian workers, but if you’d like to chime in, fish, please do!)

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:44 am While I think Russian disinformation is indeed a concern, I still think there’s some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held ant-war positions - and, even, the valid criticisms of U.S. militarism that comes with. (Heck, that article goes so far as to suggest concerns about U.S. budget deficits are actually just more Russian propaganda too!)

That compare/contrast with Vietnam seems flimsy too, since 1. For the longest time the U.S. wasn’t technically the ones fighting in Vietnam either, 2. The U.S., as DCHawq1 has pointed out, indeed IS fighting in Ukraine. (Among other reasons)

And sure Ukraine is indeed fighting for their own reasons. But to point to that as evidence it is NOT a proxy war, and the U.S. is NOT party to the conflict for reasons of our own, all seems misleading.

And it also may be misleading to state as some foregone conclusion that “Ukrainian surrender will bring peace when, in fact, the end of fighting will simply take away Ukrainians’ ability to protect themselves against Russian violence.” Seems kinda like oversimplified good guy bad guy rhetoric, again.

Now quick, somebody call me a Putin parrot! While also ignoring all the other inconvenient truths that don’t jive with your world views!

(Still waiting on trad’s take regarding U.S. weapons to allies bombing embassies and humanitarian workers, but if you’d like to chime in, fish, please do!)

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 12:10 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:44 am While I think Russian disinformation is indeed a concern, I still think there’s some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held ant-war positions - and, even, the valid criticisms of U.S. militarism that comes with. (Heck, that article goes so far as to suggest concerns about U.S. budget deficits are actually just more Russian propaganda too!)

That compare/contrast with Vietnam seems flimsy too, since 1. For the longest time the U.S. wasn’t technically the ones fighting in Vietnam either, 2. The U.S., as DCHawq1 has pointed out, indeed IS fighting in Ukraine. (Among other reasons)

And sure Ukraine is indeed fighting for their own reasons. But to point to that as evidence it is NOT a proxy war, and the U.S. is NOT party to the conflict for reasons of our own, all seems misleading.

And it also may be misleading to state as some foregone conclusion that “Ukrainian surrender will bring peace when, in fact, the end of fighting will simply take away Ukrainians’ ability to protect themselves against Russian violence.” Seems kinda like oversimplified good guy bad guy rhetoric, again.

Now quick, somebody call me a Putin parrot! While also ignoring all the other inconvenient truths that don’t jive with your world views!

(Still waiting on trad’s take regarding U.S. weapons to allies bombing embassies and humanitarian workers, but if you’d like to chime in, fish, please do!)

You are missing (or avoiding) the point.

The issue is not that people are failing to recognize that "there's some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held anti-war positions."

It is that you are failing to recognize that "sincerely-held anti-war positions" are being exploited by Russian disinformation.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:54 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:44 am While I think Russian disinformation is indeed a concern, I still think there’s some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held ant-war positions - and, even, the valid criticisms of U.S. militarism that comes with. (Heck, that article goes so far as to suggest concerns about U.S. budget deficits are actually just more Russian propaganda too!)

That compare/contrast with Vietnam seems flimsy too, since 1. For the longest time the U.S. wasn’t technically the ones fighting in Vietnam either, 2. The U.S., as DCHawq1 has pointed out, indeed IS fighting in Ukraine. (Among other reasons)

And sure Ukraine is indeed fighting for their own reasons. But to point to that as evidence it is NOT a proxy war, and the U.S. is NOT party to the conflict for reasons of our own, all seems misleading.

And it also may be misleading to state as some foregone conclusion that “Ukrainian surrender will bring peace when, in fact, the end of fighting will simply take away Ukrainians’ ability to protect themselves against Russian violence.” Seems kinda like oversimplified good guy bad guy rhetoric, again.

Now quick, somebody call me a Putin parrot! While also ignoring all the other inconvenient truths that don’t jive with your world views!

(Still waiting on trad’s take regarding U.S. weapons to allies bombing embassies and humanitarian workers, but if you’d like to chime in, fish, please do!)

why would i engage you?

so you can just turn around and deliberately misrepresent my stance down the road in an effort to try and establish some sort of twisted moral high ground?

you’ve proven yourself incapable a well-meaning, nuanced discussion on these topics

i thought i made myself abundantly clear previously, but apparently not

and spare me the hollow apologies

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:35 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 12:10 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:44 am While I think Russian disinformation is indeed a concern, I still think there’s some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held ant-war positions - and, even, the valid criticisms of U.S. militarism that comes with. (Heck, that article goes so far as to suggest concerns about U.S. budget deficits are actually just more Russian propaganda too!)

That compare/contrast with Vietnam seems flimsy too, since 1. For the longest time the U.S. wasn’t technically the ones fighting in Vietnam either, 2. The U.S., as DCHawq1 has pointed out, indeed IS fighting in Ukraine. (Among other reasons)

And sure Ukraine is indeed fighting for their own reasons. But to point to that as evidence it is NOT a proxy war, and the U.S. is NOT party to the conflict for reasons of our own, all seems misleading.

And it also may be misleading to state as some foregone conclusion that “Ukrainian surrender will bring peace when, in fact, the end of fighting will simply take away Ukrainians’ ability to protect themselves against Russian violence.” Seems kinda like oversimplified good guy bad guy rhetoric, again.

Now quick, somebody call me a Putin parrot! While also ignoring all the other inconvenient truths that don’t jive with your world views!

(Still waiting on trad’s take regarding U.S. weapons to allies bombing embassies and humanitarian workers, but if you’d like to chime in, fish, please do!)

You are missing (or avoiding) the point.

The issue is not that people are failing to recognize that "there's some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held anti-war positions."

It is that you are failing to recognize that "sincerely-held anti-war positions" are being exploited by Russian disinformation.

So what’s the remedy then?

Just scrap any sort of anti-war anything in favor of a blank check for the war machine?

That seems risky, especially considering our two biggest proxy allies are also currently being investigated for genocide…or is the IOC too to be shrugged off as Russian disinformation too?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:40 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:35 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 12:10 pm

You are missing (or avoiding) the point.

The issue is not that people are failing to recognize that "there's some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held anti-war positions."

It is that you are failing to recognize that "sincerely-held anti-war positions" are being exploited by Russian disinformation.

So what’s the remedy then?

Just scrap any sort of anti-war anything in favor of a blank check for the war machine?

That seems risky, especially considering our two biggest proxy allies are also currently being investigated for genocide…or is the IOC too to be shrugged off as Russian disinformation too?

The first remedy is critical thinking about where you are getting your information from, and what you are doing with it.

For example, this "currently being investigated for genocide" rebop has been asked/answered,* and yet here you are STILL using it without regard whatsoever for context.

* viewtopic.php?p=382826&hilit=genocide#p382826 and its responses.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:46 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:40 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:35 pm

So what’s the remedy then?

Just scrap any sort of anti-war anything in favor of a blank check for the war machine?

That seems risky, especially considering our two biggest proxy allies are also currently being investigated for genocide…or is the IOC too to be shrugged off as Russian disinformation too?

The first remedy is critical thinking about where you are getting your information from, and what you are doing with it.

For example, this "currently being investigated for genocide" rebop has been asked/answered,* and yet here you are STILL using it without regard whatsoever for context.

* viewtopic.php?p=382826&hilit=genocide#p382826 and its responses.

So the New York Times too is putin propaganda?

What sources do you recommend otherwise?

And, HOW DO YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE FACT YOUR AND MY TAX DOLLARS ARE BUYING WEAPONS TO KILL U.S. CIVILIANS?!?!?!?!!??!!!

excuse the all caps, but I mean, the silence is deafening.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:36 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:54 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:44 am While I think Russian disinformation is indeed a concern, I still think there’s some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held ant-war positions - and, even, the valid criticisms of U.S. militarism that comes with. (Heck, that article goes so far as to suggest concerns about U.S. budget deficits are actually just more Russian propaganda too!)

That compare/contrast with Vietnam seems flimsy too, since 1. For the longest time the U.S. wasn’t technically the ones fighting in Vietnam either, 2. The U.S., as DCHawq1 has pointed out, indeed IS fighting in Ukraine. (Among other reasons)

And sure Ukraine is indeed fighting for their own reasons. But to point to that as evidence it is NOT a proxy war, and the U.S. is NOT party to the conflict for reasons of our own, all seems misleading.

And it also may be misleading to state as some foregone conclusion that “Ukrainian surrender will bring peace when, in fact, the end of fighting will simply take away Ukrainians’ ability to protect themselves against Russian violence.” Seems kinda like oversimplified good guy bad guy rhetoric, again.

Now quick, somebody call me a Putin parrot! While also ignoring all the other inconvenient truths that don’t jive with your world views!

(Still waiting on trad’s take regarding U.S. weapons to allies bombing embassies and humanitarian workers, but if you’d like to chime in, fish, please do!)

why would i engage you?

so you can just turn around and deliberately misrepresent my stance down the road in an effort to try and establish some sort of twisted moral high ground?

you’ve proven yourself incapable a well-meaning, nuanced discussion on these topics

i thought i made myself abundantly clear previously, but apparently not

and spare me the hollow apologies

Yup, you’re def holding a grudge.

How tragic.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:35 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 12:10 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:44 am While I think Russian disinformation is indeed a concern, I still think there’s some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held ant-war positions - and, even, the valid criticisms of U.S. militarism that comes with. (Heck, that article goes so far as to suggest concerns about U.S. budget deficits are actually just more Russian propaganda too!)

That compare/contrast with Vietnam seems flimsy too, since 1. For the longest time the U.S. wasn’t technically the ones fighting in Vietnam either, 2. The U.S., as DCHawq1 has pointed out, indeed IS fighting in Ukraine. (Among other reasons)

And sure Ukraine is indeed fighting for their own reasons. But to point to that as evidence it is NOT a proxy war, and the U.S. is NOT party to the conflict for reasons of our own, all seems misleading.

And it also may be misleading to state as some foregone conclusion that “Ukrainian surrender will bring peace when, in fact, the end of fighting will simply take away Ukrainians’ ability to protect themselves against Russian violence.” Seems kinda like oversimplified good guy bad guy rhetoric, again.

Now quick, somebody call me a Putin parrot! While also ignoring all the other inconvenient truths that don’t jive with your world views!

(Still waiting on trad’s take regarding U.S. weapons to allies bombing embassies and humanitarian workers, but if you’d like to chime in, fish, please do!)

You are missing (or avoiding) the point.

The issue is not that people are failing to recognize that "there's some gray area between Russian disinformation, and sincerely-held anti-war positions."

It is that you are failing to recognize that "sincerely-held anti-war positions" are being exploited by Russian disinformation.

So what’s the remedy then?

Just scrap any sort of anti-war anything in favor of a blank check for the war machine?

That seems risky, especially considering our two biggest proxy allies are also currently being investigated for genocide…or is the IOC too to be shrugged off as Russian disinformation too?