Kansas Crimson

is the ukraine an issue that you would expect to move the needle one way or the other come november.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:04 pm What core truth is that, again?

Russia bad Ukraine good Merica best?

No, that is not it.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:11 pm Fair enough. Excuse me.

I spoke as if the iron dome was some general air defense of Israel, rather than the specific equipment.

So, let’s then compare and contrast with why the U.S. and UK and France aren’t wielding that kind of power on the Ukrainian border.

I don’t mean that out of pure antagonism, either. There are nuances here.

The US has made several statements already about why they would not be doing such things.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-says ... %20country.

In the end it comes down to not wanting to escalate a war with Russia, which would be infinitely more deadly and dangerous than if a war with Iran escalated.

Just because you will punch a 150 pound person in the face for being a bully doesn't mean you should be expected to punch Mike Tyson in the face for being a bully, even if you would eventually beat Mike Tyson due to him being a shell of his most ferocious self.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:17 pm is the ukraine an issue that you would expect to move the needle one way or the other come november.

It will be an issue that some GOP voters will claim is why they support Trump.

interesting.

to steal a phrase from my bestie...."i don't give a $#!t about ukraine!"

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:31 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:04 pm What core truth is that, again?

Russia bad Ukraine good Merica best?

No, that is not it.

Lemme guess:

Some rhetoric about unprovoked and unilateral?

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:17 pm is the ukraine an issue that you would expect to move the needle one way or the other come november.

Honestly, among Americans, it seems like the Gaza issue is raising a lot more hackles.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/678077/

…Why the difference in reaction? Why did American and European jets scramble to help Israel, but not Ukraine? Why doesn’t Ukraine have enough matériel to defend itself? One difference is the balance of nuclear power. Russia has nuclear weapons, and its propagandists periodically threaten to use them. That has made the U.S. and Europe reluctant to enter the skies over Ukraine. Israel also has nuclear weapons, but that affects the calculus in a different way: It means that the U.S., Europe, and even some Arab states are eager to make sure that Israel is never provoked enough to use them, or indeed to use any serious conventional weapons, against Iran.

A second difference between the two conflicts is that the Republican Party remains staunchly resistant to propaganda coming from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Leading Republicans do not sympathize with the mullahs, do not repeat their talking points, and do not seek to appease them when they make outrageous claims about other countries. That enables the Biden administration to rush to the aid of Israel, because no serious opposition will follow.

By contrast, a part of the Republican Party, including its presidential candidate, does sympathize with the Russian dictatorship, does repeat its talking points, and does seek to appease Russia when it invades and occupies other countries. The absence of bipartisan solidarity around Ukraine means that the Republican congressional leadership has prevented the Biden administration from sending even defensive weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. The Biden administration appears to feel constrained and unable to provide Ukraine with the spontaneous assistance that it just provided to Israel.

Open sympathy for the war aims of the Russian state is rarely stated out loud. Instead, some leading Republicans have begun, in the past few months, to argue that Ukraine should “shift to a defensive war,” to give up any hope of retaining its occupied territory, or else stop fighting altogether. Senator J. D. Vance of Ohio, in a New York Times essay written in what can only be described as extraordinary bad faith, made exactly this argument just last week. So too, for example, did Republican Representative Eli Crane of Arizona, who has said that military aid for Ukraine “should be totally off the table and replaced with a push for peace talks.”…

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 6:05 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:31 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:04 pm What core truth is that, again?

Russia bad Ukraine good Merica best?

No, that is not it.

Lemme guess:

Some rhetoric about unprovoked and unilateral?

That is not, here in the real world where claims require evidence, “rhetoric” to be bothsidely compared with Putin’s, and it’s sad and ridiculous that you cannot separate basic fact from fiction on this fundamental point.

But that is precisely the aim of bullshit pretext that you still adopt and amplify, so.

So remember how I kept bugging you to discuss Israel bombing aid workers and embassies. After repeatedly dodging the discussion, you finally offered some something about how, to use your own word, you simply didn’t “understand” the issues enough to comment?

You’ve done that exact same thing about every single thing that might deviate from your views on Ukraine and Russia, too.

It’s how you’ve managed to maintain such views! Your views depend on it!

It really dilutes your credibility here, when I otherwise value your takes on so much else. That’s why I’ve tried to engage you, but am more and more realizing it’s just futile.

I think it’s not that you cannot understand these issues. It’s that you will not.

Put another way: I don’t think it’s that you’re too dumb to “understand” these issues. I think it’s that you’re too stubborn.

ay caramba

"stop being stubborn" says the mule

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 8:17 pm So remember how I kept bugging you to discuss Israel bombing aid workers and embassies. After repeatedly dodging the discussion, you finally offered some something about how, to use your own word, you simply didn’t “understand” the issues enough to comment?

You’ve done that exact same thing about every single thing that might deviate from your views on Ukraine and Russia, too.

It’s how you’ve managed to maintain such views! Your views depend on it!

It really dilutes your credibility here, when I otherwise value your takes on so much else. That’s why I’ve tried to engage you, but am more and more realizing it’s just futile.

I think it’s not that you cannot understand these issues. It’s that you will not.

Put another way: I don’t think it’s that you’re too dumb to “understand” these issues. I think it’s that you’re too stubborn.

You want to make this discussion about everything all at once, OR about fringe issues as the lens through which bigger issues must be viewed.

I don’t think either of those approaches is really helpful to understanding anything.

And it’s fairly rich, taking flak about evasiveness, from someone who aggressively sprints the hell away from what is - at least based on what is known - not really deniable as fact:

Putin bears all of the responsibility for Russia’s war on Ukraine. Even if there are corrupt Ukrainians, even if Raytheon is making money, even if Zelensky looked at Putin funny.

That is NOT, however much you’d like to put words in my mouth, saying other people and countries did not do anything wrong. But, unless you have new evidence you’d like to put forward, absolutely nothing anyone else did justifies what Putin is doing.

And, to be denying or muddying that is just as silly as being a flat-earther or climate change denialist. It is simply, obviously, factually incorrect.

Sigh.

I'm just not sure if it's worth speaking in these absolutes. That's not how history books write things.

If I may ask, and do so without putting words in your mouth: how do you reconcile "NOT...saying other people and countries did not do anything wrong" with also insisting one particular person "bears all of the responsibility" here?

And that's not to say I don't think Putin bears responsibility! I think he overwhelmingly does!

I just dunno how to acknowledge that other people and countries may have done things wrong, while also insisting other people and countries don't bear any responsibility even if they did things wrong.

like...wut?

Just my own observation, but that once again seems like some sorta double standard.

It’s not that complicated.

Say Cory did something mean to Shawn. Really mean. Called him poor, rubbed it in his face that Cory has Topanga and Shawn never will.

Cory should not have done those mean things!

But then say Shawn locks Cory’s sister and mom in their rooms upstairs, does unspeakable things to them, and then burns the Matthews house down with them inside.

Shawn is one hundred fucking percent responsible for rape, arson and murder! It doesn’t matter at all that Cory also did things he should not have done!

Ah. I see. Fascinating.

And what if Cory’s “something mean” involved things that were far worse than teasing and calling names? Things that involved weapons and injuries and deaths as well?

Sure, that doesn’t mean Shawn shouldn’t be responsible for any harm he’s done, but does that change anything toward Cory’s responsibility?

Would that, at the very least, be maybe a tad more complicated yet?

fish, you’re forgetting what Cory did a few 6 weeks ago, and then that thing he did two years ago

plus, Shawn’s neighbors all want to be friends with Cory

Shawn’s very existence is under threat!!

Double standard, indeed.

It’s the politics of hypocrisy.

“Do as I say not as I do” on a global scale.

Let’s try to look forward here tho.

Now going on 3 years in, still with no end in sight…how does this end?

And if I may try another question that didn’t get answered the first time around:

is Biden loosing the information war to Putin?

I mean, Putin’s propaganda is being parroted by everyone from sitting U.S. senators to U.S. newspapers of record.

And Biden is pushing hard for another multi-billion dollar aid package to Ukraine, but it’s stalled in the House…maybe it’s a messaging problem?

Has Biden articulated that this particular aid package will be the one that ultimately sways the outcome favorably? Rather than yet another aid package thrown at a conflict with an increasingly UNfavorable outcome as time goes on.

Where’s the rhetoric? Heck, where’s the plan? “For no matter how long it takes” isn’t exactly the most thoroughly-devised strategy

Maybe if he could articulate that much to, say, the American people; then more lawmakers would be on bored too!

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:23 am Let’s try to look forward here tho.

Now going on 3 years in, still with no end in sight…how does this end?

And if I may try another question that didn’t get answered the first time around:

is Biden loosing the information war to Putin?

I mean, Putin’s propaganda is being parroted by everyone from sitting U.S. senators to U.S. newspapers of record.

And Biden is pushing hard for another multi-billion dollar aid package to Ukraine, but it’s stalled in the House…maybe it’s a messaging problem?

Has Biden articulated that this particular aid package will be the one that ultimately sways the outcome favorably? Rather than yet another aid package thrown at a conflict with an increasingly UNfavorable outcome as time goes on.

Where’s the rhetoric? Heck, where’s the plan? “For no matter how long it takes” isn’t exactly the most thoroughly-devised strategy

Maybe if he could articulate that much to, say, the American people; then more lawmakers would be on bored too!

The people more swayed by the "information" being sent out by each side are the GOP "Patriots" and they are more prone to taking Putin's word for what is happening than taking the US's word for what is happening.

imo, they’re also the same kinds of people that are generally poorly informed about the goings on in other parts of the world