Vivek Ramaswamy - GOP Candidate for President

36,425 Views | 366 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by boognish_bear
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

bear2be2 said:

KaiBear said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

KaiBear said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.

The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).

But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.
Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.

There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.

We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.

The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
Provoked in what way specifically?
The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.

And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.

Just ask yourself:

1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.

This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.

As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
We're doing no such thing. What we're doing is economically supporting a friendly country that was attacked by Russia and has no interest in ceding any more of its sovereign land to its invader.

Brokering a peace deal here, which is no more our place than fighting this war, would only be appeasing Russia and eroding at the freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine, which is far more reprehensible than allowing a country that desires to be free to continue the fight for its freedom.

Russia could end the fighting any time they want to. They're quite literally the only reason there's any fighting at all. Invading Ukraine was reprehensible. And so, too, would be rewarding Russia's decision to do so with further appeasement.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It would be kind of cool if all the liberals who support Biden giving aid to Ukraine so they can preserve their borders, would support patriotic Americans who wish Dementia Joe work to preserve our own
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

It would be kind of cool if all the liberals who support Biden giving aid to Ukraine so they can preserve their borders, would support patriotic Americans who wish Dementia Joe work to preserve our own
Those are two completely unrelated issues. It's classic diversion to conflate them.

Our failed immigration policy has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with the fact that neither side wants to solve that issue more than they want to maintain the status quo as a political football.

If there was an appetite for real immigration reform, it would have been presented and signed into law any time in the last two decades. But solving issues wouldn't allow the Republicans or Democrats to blame the other side for their existence.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Rawhide said:

It would be kind of cool if all the liberals who support Biden giving aid to Ukraine so they can preserve their borders, would support patriotic Americans who wish Dementia Joe work to preserve our own
Those are two completely unrelated issues. It's classic diversion to conflate them.

Our failed immigration policy has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with the fact that neither side wants to solve that issue more than they want to maintain the status quo as a political football.

If there was an appetite for real immigration reform, it would have been presented and signed into law any time in the last two decades. But solving issues wouldn't allow the Republicans or Democrats to blame the other side for their existence.
Not as "completely unrelated" as you want to think. We're fighting a proxy with Russia through Ukraine. China is fighting a proxy with America through the Mexican cartels.

Ukranians are dying from Russian military hardware crossing their border into their country. Americans are dying from China/Cartel Fentanyl smuggled across our open border and flooding into our country; yet libs don't seem to give a chit about it.

Not too long ago, didn't you libs scream that America needs to keep its nose out of everyone's business and stop fighting everyone else's war, stop being the world's police?

Boy that tuned changed quick when democrats decided to be war hawks.

If y'all feel that strongly now about Ukraine, where the hell were y'all when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014.

The only reason why the libs and dems are for "supporting Ukraine" is because their dementia ridden democrat president has been sending billions and wants to continue to do so. If it was a Bush or a Trump or a Regan, you lefties would be screaming bloody murder about America being involved.

The end.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

bear2be2 said:

Rawhide said:

It would be kind of cool if all the liberals who support Biden giving aid to Ukraine so they can preserve their borders, would support patriotic Americans who wish Dementia Joe work to preserve our own
Those are two completely unrelated issues. It's classic diversion to conflate them.

Our failed immigration policy has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with the fact that neither side wants to solve that issue more than they want to maintain the status quo as a political football.

If there was an appetite for real immigration reform, it would have been presented and signed into law any time in the last two decades. But solving issues wouldn't allow the Republicans or Democrats to blame the other side for their existence.
Not as "completely unrelated" as you want to think. We're fighting a proxy with Russia through Ukraine. China is fighting a proxy with America through the Mexican cartels.

Ukranians are dying from Russian military hardware crossing their border into their country. Americans are dying from China/Cartel Fentanyl smuggled across our open border and flooding into our country; yet libs don't seem to give a chit about it.

Not too long ago, didn't you libs scream that America needs to keep its nose out of everyone's business and stop fighting everyone else's war, stop being the world's police?

Boy that tuned changed quick when democrats decided to be war hawks.

If y'all feel that strongly now about Ukraine, where the hell were y'all when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014.

The only reason why the libs and dems are for "supporting Ukraine" is because their dementia ridden democrat president has been sending billions and wants to continue to do so. If it was a Bush or a Trump or a Regan, you lefties would be screaming bloody murder about America being involved.

Then end.
I don't give two ****s about Joe Biden, and frankly, I don't know anyone in my personal sphere who supports him enough to change the way they feel about any particular issue to carry his water.

This isn't a political issue for those who feel strongly about it. It's a moral one.

Giving money and supplies to Ukraine so that they can defend their homeland from an unjustified act of military aggression against them is in no way, shape or form equivalent to us sending our kids to Vietnam or the Middle East to die in wars started by rich liars north of Richmond on dubious grounds (at best).

Not wanting our military involved in orchestrated regime change and nation building doesn't preclude one from valuing our place as a champion of a free world.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Rawhide said:

bear2be2 said:

Rawhide said:

It would be kind of cool if all the liberals who support Biden giving aid to Ukraine so they can preserve their borders, would support patriotic Americans who wish Dementia Joe work to preserve our own
Those are two completely unrelated issues. It's classic diversion to conflate them.

Our failed immigration policy has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with the fact that neither side wants to solve that issue more than they want to maintain the status quo as a political football.

If there was an appetite for real immigration reform, it would have been presented and signed into law any time in the last two decades. But solving issues wouldn't allow the Republicans or Democrats to blame the other side for their existence.
Not as "completely unrelated" as you want to think. We're fighting a proxy with Russia through Ukraine. China is fighting a proxy with America through the Mexican cartels.

Ukranians are dying from Russian military hardware crossing their border into their country. Americans are dying from China/Cartel Fentanyl smuggled across our open border and flooding into our country; yet libs don't seem to give a chit about it.

Not too long ago, didn't you libs scream that America needs to keep its nose out of everyone's business and stop fighting everyone else's war, stop being the world's police?

Boy that tuned changed quick when democrats decided to be war hawks.

If y'all feel that strongly now about Ukraine, where the hell were y'all when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014.

The only reason why the libs and dems are for "supporting Ukraine" is because their dementia ridden democrat president has been sending billions and wants to continue to do so. If it was a Bush or a Trump or a Regan, you lefties would be screaming bloody murder about America being involved.

Then end.
I don't give two ****s about Joe Biden, and frankly, I don't know anyone in my personal sphere who supports him enough to change the way they feel about any particular issue to carry his water.

This isn't a political issue for those who feel strongly about it. It's a moral one.

Giving money and supplies to Ukraine so that they can defend their homeland from an unjustified act of military aggression against them is in no way, shape or form equivalent to us sending our kids to Vietnam or the Middle East to die in wars started by rich liars north of Richmond on dubious grounds (at best).

Not wanting our military involved in orchestrated regime change and nation building doesn't preclude one from valuing our place as a champion of a free world.
And Biden's open border issue is a moral one as well. Forget the fentanyl for a second and let's take a look at the sheer amount of human trafficking of children because of cartels taking advantage of biden's porous border.

So, if liberals want to get on their moral high horse over a territorial war involving two historically corrupt countries that aren't members of NATO while ignoring what the hell is happening to/in our own country because of their unsecure border.... they can kindly go **** themselves.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

KaiBear said:

bear2be2 said:

KaiBear said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

KaiBear said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.

The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).

But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.
Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.

There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.

We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.

The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
Provoked in what way specifically?
The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.

And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.

Just ask yourself:

1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.

This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.

As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
We're doing no such thing. What we're doing is economically supporting a friendly country that was attacked by Russia and has no interest in ceding any more of its sovereign land to its invader.

Brokering a peace deal here, which is no more our place than fighting this war, would only be appeasing Russia and eroding at the freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine, which is far more reprehensible than allowing a country that desires to be free to continue the fight for its freedom.

Russia could end the fighting any time they want to. They're quite literally the only reason there's any fighting at all. Invading Ukraine was reprehensible. And so, too, would be rewarding Russia's decision to do so with further appeasement.
I respect your conviction, but I don't believe the West can disclaim responsibility by pretending that we're just following Ukraine's wishes. Ukraine can't make a deal without our support. They've been willing to negotiate, and we're the ones who have stood in the way. If we care about their interests and don't want them to lose more territory, a peace deal is the way to accomplish that.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

bear2be2 said:

Rawhide said:

It would be kind of cool if all the liberals who support Biden giving aid to Ukraine so they can preserve their borders, would support patriotic Americans who wish Dementia Joe work to preserve our own
Those are two completely unrelated issues. It's classic diversion to conflate them.

Our failed immigration policy has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with the fact that neither side wants to solve that issue more than they want to maintain the status quo as a political football.

If there was an appetite for real immigration reform, it would have been presented and signed into law any time in the last two decades. But solving issues wouldn't allow the Republicans or Democrats to blame the other side for their existence.
Not as "completely unrelated" as you want to think. We're fighting a proxy with Russia through Ukraine. China is fighting a proxy with America through the Mexican cartels.

Ukranians are dying from Russian military hardware crossing their border into their country. Americans are dying from China/Cartel Fentanyl smuggled across our open border and flooding into our country; yet libs don't seem to give a chit about it.

Not too long ago, didn't you libs scream that America needs to keep its nose out of everyone's business and stop fighting everyone else's war, stop being the world's police?

Boy that tuned changed quick when democrats decided to be war hawks.

If y'all feel that strongly now about Ukraine, where the hell were y'all when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014.

The only reason why the libs and dems are for "supporting Ukraine" is because their dementia ridden democrat president has been sending billions and wants to continue to do so. If it was a Bush or a Trump or a Regan, you lefties would be screaming bloody murder about America being involved.

Then end.


Can you guys for once separate politics from whether we should help Ukraine maintain independence,?.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.

We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.

The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
Provoked in what way specifically?
The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.

And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.

Just ask yourself:

1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.

This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.

As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

KaiBear said:

bear2be2 said:

KaiBear said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

KaiBear said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

boognish_bear said:


It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.

The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).

But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.
Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.

There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.

We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.

The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
Provoked in what way specifically?
The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.

And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.

Just ask yourself:

1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.

This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.

As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
We're doing no such thing. What we're doing is economically supporting a friendly country that was attacked by Russia and has no interest in ceding any more of its sovereign land to its invader.

Brokering a peace deal here, which is no more our place than fighting this war, would only be appeasing Russia and eroding at the freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine, which is far more reprehensible than allowing a country that desires to be free to continue the fight for its freedom.

Russia could end the fighting any time they want to. They're quite literally the only reason there's any fighting at all. Invading Ukraine was reprehensible. And so, too, would be rewarding Russia's decision to do so with further appeasement.
I respect your conviction, but I don't believe the West can disclaim responsibility by pretending that we're just following Ukraine's wishes. Ukraine can't make a deal without our support. They've been willing to negotiate, and we're the ones who have stood in the way. If we care about their interests and don't want them to lose more territory, a peace deal is the way to accomplish that.


Wrong, vatnik. As always.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

KaiBear said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.

We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.

The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
Provoked in what way specifically?
The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.

And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.

Just ask yourself:

1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.

This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.

As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

whiterock said:

KaiBear said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.

We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.

The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
Provoked in what way specifically?
The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.

And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.

Just ask yourself:

1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.

This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.

As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.


And you both are repeatedly wrong, Canada.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear8084 said:

KaiBear said:

whiterock said:

KaiBear said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.

We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.

The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
Provoked in what way specifically?
The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.

And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.

Just ask yourself:

1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.

This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.

As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.


And you both are repeatedly wrong, Canada.


Not even remotely wrong.

Some folks simply refuse to look at facts objectively when they reveal flaws in their country's actions.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other similar screwups all come to mind, and we still don't remove the blinders.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
That will make it better! More of the same that gave us the corrupt Government and Putin! That will show em!
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
If this report is true, it should wake up even this most clueless mouth breather.

The American taxpayer is getting ripped off while US elites and Ukranian tyrants get richer.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aliceinbubbleland said:

I don't think he stands a chance. He may be as tone dead as DeSantis when it comes to relating to the old party faithful.




bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.

That's my point. The Ukrainian people want democracy. And they've proven on a number of occasions they'll fight for it. Zelensky would be foolish to overplay his hand where elections are concerned.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.
They've been doing that since the 2014 coup and have died by the thousands as a result. That's what happens when proxies try to exercise their "agency" against US wishes.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.
They've been doing that since the 2014 coup and have died by the thousands as a result. That's what happens when proxies try to exercise their "agency" against US wishes.


Lol no, vatnik.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.
They've been doing that since the 2014 coup and have died by the thousands as a result. That's what happens when proxies try to exercise their "agency" against US wishes.
Interesting. It appears Putin has expanded into the tinfoil business.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.
They've been doing that since the 2014 coup and have died by the thousands as a result. That's what happens when proxies try to exercise their "agency" against US wishes.
Interesting. It appears Putin has expanded into the tinfoil business.


Always has.
Swamp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SIAP

FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.
They've been doing that since the 2014 coup and have died by the thousands as a result. That's what happens when proxies try to exercise their "agency" against US wishes.
Yeah, all the US. Right, Comrade Samanov?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.
They've been doing that since the 2014 coup and have died by the thousands as a result. That's what happens when proxies try to exercise their "agency" against US wishes.
Yeah, all the US. Right, Comrade Samanov?
Come on now, you're better than that.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

bear2be2 said:

muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.
They've been doing that since the 2014 coup and have died by the thousands as a result. That's what happens when proxies try to exercise their "agency" against US wishes.
Yeah, all the US. Right, Comrade Samanov?
Come on now, you're better than that.
Yeah, but it was an easy shot. Prepping for Hurricane, so my time is limited right now. Will get tons of time come about 4 hours!
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Swamp said:

SIAP


If we can't trust billionaire pharma bros in this country, who can we trust?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.

That's my point. The Ukrainian people want democracy. And they've proven on a number of occasions they'll fight for it. Zelensky would be foolish to overplay his hand where elections are concerned.
No they won't. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt countries on the planet for a long ass time and their people haven't done squat about it.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

bear2be2 said:

muddybrazos said:

bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.


Someone should tell the Ukranian people that they dont get a free democracy bc their president is a tyrant.
No one will need to tell the Ukrainian people. If this is a long-term threat to their voting rights, they'll do the same thing to Zelensky they've done to past leaders that tried to overreach their authority or circumvent the will of the people.

That's my point. The Ukrainian people want democracy. And they've proven on a number of occasions they'll fight for it. Zelensky would be foolish to overplay his hand where elections are concerned.
No they won't. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt countries on the planet for a long ass time and their people haven't done squat about it.
Clearly you haven't paid much attention to Ukraine's history since the fall of the Soviet Union. Equating government corruption to an acceptance of such by the people is silly.

Like most new democracies, Ukraine has had its hiccups, but the people have steadfastly stood on the side of free, democratic rule. And those who have tried to circumvent that have been summarily rejected and eventually ousted.

To suggest they "haven't done squat" is patently false. It's a ridiculously ignorant take.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.

If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?

The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?

Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.

Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.

Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?

It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.

Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.


The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.

A reprehensible act.

And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .
why is it reprehensible?

The Ukes are highly motivated to fight to expel an invading army. How could it possibly be immoral to support them?


Sam and I have repeatedly pointed out how Ukraine was manipulated into this war.

How they can't even negotiate an end to the war without US approval.

You simply chop to ignore the realities, which of course is your right.
Well, you have pointed out a disjointed argument that begs a question plainly at odds with history.

Here's a timeline:
-Yanukovich )who hailed from Donbas) was popularly elected promising to continue a pro-EU platform.
-In response to RUSSIAN pressure, Yanukovich vetoed the EU bill he'd promised to support.
-The Ukrainian Parliament removed Yanukovich from office.
-RUSSIA started a "little green men" spec op in Donbass.
-RUSSIA seized Crimea.
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Poroshenko
-Ukraine elected a pro-EU president Zelensky
-RUSSIA invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.
There would be no war in Ukraine had Russia not invaded it THREE TIMES in the last 10 years. The idea that USA somehow manipulated all the actors involved to take actions which would lead to war....a war that threatens US and NATO interests in the region...is just plain goofy. To the extent that your arguments against further US military support for Ukraine is premised on such faulty history, it undermines your entire argument (which is laced with all kinds of ignorance of history and the dynamics of world affairs.)

Now, all that said, there are principled grounds to oppose further funding, foremost of which are the varied budgetary reasons. They are at best not persuasive. Ergo our continued support with strong support of the American public, who at least in the main grasp that Russian victory is bad and Ukrainian victory is good.
8:00 - 8:50 MWF
Propaganda 101
Prof. J. Whiterock (BS, 2023)
Every one of those bullet points can be footnoted to uncontested history.

The "blame America for the Ukraine War" cannot.
There's a pretty simple way to figure out which side is the right one from both a historical and moral standpoint. It's the one that doesn't try to remove all agency from and ignore the wishes of the Ukrainian people, who have repeatedly and with their own blood told us they don't want to be ruled or controlled by Russia or its puppets.

We can talk all we want about the effectiveness of the Ukrainian government or the United States' role in that region, but the Ukrainian people themselves want a free democracy and they've resisted (sometimes violently) every time Russian interference has put that in jeopardy.

Blue star.

Democracy should never die for lack of ammunition.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MSNBC asking Vivek for evidence.

MSNBC providing Vivek evidence - "A guy in Florida says..."

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.