The Pentagon unveils $1.3 billion for Ukraine, bringing total new U.S. aid this week to $2.3 billion.
The Pentagon unveils $1.3 billion for Ukraine, bringing total new U.S. aid this week to $2.3 billion.
You're viewing a single thread.
Who doesn't like their tax dollars being spent on killing people instead of socialist stuff like healthcare, education, social workers and government services that actually serve citizens.
The USA could afford what's being provided to Ukraine and socialized benefits. But chooses not to because of some dumb reason or another.
This is the answer. It isn’t a zero sum game.
It's more the hypocrisy of some people. The ones who cheer for a huge defense/foreign aid budget year after year no matter who it's for, and then leave removed comments on FB about student loan forgiveness being "unfair" because it uses their tax dollars.
I mean, yeah, they have the biggest money printer on the planet, so they could've socialized almost everything for their citizens if it didn't go all into their black budgets, military, bribery and foreign meddling instead, but here they are, 32T in debt, double the debt from 10 years ago, ~100k of debt per person. If that's not a failed state, I don't know what is.
You don't know what is.
If that's not a failed state, I don't know what is.
You probably don't know what is it. I mean, look at South Africa for a recent example of a failed state.
perhaps do some research on the colonial history of South Africa and Western exploitation and read up on the definition of the term failed state and then look at some news reports regarding the US. I don't know how some of you people keep on coming up with these cheap rebuttals that you obviously haven't spent more than a minute of thinking on.
So, in your mind, helping to prevent civilians from dying in a war zone and stopping countries being taken over by foreign powers to be exploited is not a worthy humanitarian effort?
European countries are taking somewhat decent care of Ukrainian refugees, which can't be said for refugees that aren't white skinned.
And did you just collate military equipment with a humanitarian effort or am misreading that?
I'm in full support of any real humanitarian aid possible: Support their wounded and sick, support their people with basic needs (generators/energy, food, water, clothing, temporary housing, psych support etc).
Sometimes I'm really surprised at some of these questions you people come up with.
Edit: Typo.
Europe has taken in millions of non-white refugees and taken great care of them. How many have Russia and china taken in? India? Brazil?
India and Brazil, famous white countries. Aren't you people the "this is whataboutism" spam guys?
Look it up. I'm not your personal researcher, sorry. I'm happy to provide sources to backup claims I've brought up myself.
I never compared Europe to other nations in terms of harboring refugees and I didn't even imply that Europe hasn't been taking in refugees. I wish you'd spend a bit more time reading and understanding what people are writing instead of just coming up with cheap rhetorical or whataboutism questions.
My point is people to want to go there. They want to go to Europe because they'll have good opportunities and be treated relatively well.
That's what Russia is doing yes.
They have no need for healthcare, education and stuff. They are afraid of their own shadows, they just need guns to defend themselves. In the end, they can just eat those bullets to survive. ...or shoot some skool.
Why would countries just ignore global authoritarian threats
To be global authoritarian you have to be the wealthiest and most powerful. And currently there is only one government and its army that takes this title.
I guess being able to trigger global nuclear war is not global enough threat for you?
What is a "global authoritarian"?
Yo, mate! Your words! I copied them from your post...
Yes and do you understand what they mean?
I do!
authoritarian threats
This is a meaningless term used in this way. Every state is authoritarian, by definition. The only "state" that isn't authoritarian is anarchy, and that's only not an authoritarian state because it's not a state. Use more accurate terms if you want to make a point.
Countries are ignoring global authoritarian threats, by ignoring themselves, but that's probably not the point you were trying to make.
rejection of political plurality,
Like when so much money is funnelled into US politics that only two capitalist 'parties' are able to compete, and they have almost identical policies except for some window dressing?
the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo,
Like when the republicans block democrat legislation, even though the democrats are in power?
and reductions in the rule of law,
What happened to Roe v Wade and how?
separation of powers,
Like when the previous POTUS secures a GOP majority on the Supreme Court, which the current POTUS can't change?
and democratic voting.
Like suppressing votes by criminalising being black and requiring voter ID?
The problem with the term 'authoritarian' is that it's either meaningless and applies to everybody or nobody and is used as a weak rhetorical device, or it's given some theoretical basis and it applies to every state and is used to shed light on state relations. Either way, it's not a coherent criticism in an of itself.
criminalizing being black
Not much fun or use "debating" someone who says this kind of thing.
Probably for the best.
It's not whataboutism, whatever that means. It's an illustration that the use of 'authoritarian/ism' as a pejorative against one state in particular is a kind of inverse category error. The fact that a state is authoritarian is not automatically negative (except to anarchists); the term applies to every state. Hence, to use 'authoritarian\ism' to imply a negative is only coherent if one means to criticise the state form itself.
First time in my lifetime I've seen the US military might truly used for something good.
Me too. I've opposed every US war that occured in my 50 year life except this one.
when you're on the side of the US state department, you've done something wrong
Yup.
Before-the-events, did you think the same about Libya, Afghanistan, or Iraq?
Thanks for replying. This one made me think. I've written a longer response here, https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1022436, the start of which is not intended to be passive aggressive. I just wanted to frame it so as to deal with the issues rather than your personal interpretation.
No.
Why not? What's different about this one?
For one thing, this is a violent land grab. For another, this the effort and will of what... 50 countries? Vs about five: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela. And those 50 countries are on average much more democratic than Russia and it's allies.
Lol imagine thinking you have an iota of democracy when you can't even get a broken leg fixed without dying from debt. You can't even be unemployed without it being a literal death sentence.
Imagine thinking China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela were not made into the countries they are today through the direct interference into their political systems by the some of the 50 ciuntries you mentioned.
You've been brainwashed. The world stands with Russia on this and is opposed to America's war in Ukraine. The most provoked war in living memory.
The UN has consistently voted against Russia on this. There are a handful of authoritarian that back Russia but globally support for Ukraine is unparalleled.
These are mostly countries that are bullied into voting this way by the US. It doesn't reflect real sentiment.
No, the world really doesn't stand with Russia, if you have any understanding of international relations you would see that. Even the countries that have voted to support Russia are represented by relatively authoritarian governments.
And you're not suspicious at all, as to why that's the case?
It's infuriating to me to see Democracy Now reporting get downvoted. 🤬
Hold on just a minute while I base my worldview on YouTube....
Democracy Now! Is a 501(c)3 non-profit news organization that was founded in 1996... What are you talking about? They are one of the oldest and one of the few non corporate news agencies in the country...
But keep getting your news from black rock backed sources I guess.
YouTube hosts videos. It doesn't directly create content of it's own. The video in question, which merely happens to be hosted on YouTube, was produced by a media organisation, Democracy Now.
No, base your "worldview" on the echo chamber in these Ukraine threads, they all learned their "worldview" in Crusader Kings 3. Some of em in "Mein Kampf" it would seem.
Why is the continuation of this war any better than the continuation of any war?
A lot of people are propagandized as fuck (and I do not mean that as an insult on their intelligence or anyting, good propaganda works really well, even on smart people) and I don't think most of these comments would survive if the posters spent a bit more time thinking about what they're actually saying.
Obviously I don't know everyone's political histories. But most people around me IRL who supported the idea of going into Iraq and Afghanistan (they were kind of blurred into one conflict) said, 'never again' and have been quite anti-war ever since.
A few of those backtracked and said, 'well, maybe one more time' when it came to Libya. Then afterwards, they said, 'we really mean "never again" this time'.
But Ukraine has sent almost everyone into a frenzy for war. I had assumed that after Iraq, especially—which exposed the depth of lying that NATO is willing to sink to—that nobody would believe NATO's version of the truth again. How naive I was.
I wouldn't even mind if they (not necessarily Jaysyn, whom I don't know) still disbelieved Russia's narrative. In fact, I'd welcome it. A little healthy skepticism would lead to far better politics. All I see is skepticism against Russia but total faith in NATO. Where has critical thinking gone?
To disbelieve Russia's narrative only to accept NATO's? Wtf did I miss? I don't think gullibility covers it. As you say, it must be constant and clever propaganda. I suppose they have the money for it, considering how much they have to gain if they can beat the drum of war.
Edit: grammar
I'm in the same boat as you are. What has me really shocked is how my European friends are in full "support the troops" mode now. What's really surprising is how all their arguments almost always follow the same simplistic dualist thinking ("so you think Ukraine should just give up?", "but it's a democracy", "but pUtLeR will take Poland next", "you're just spurting Russian propaganda") and how people basically ignore all of your arguments just to call you a supporter of an "evil imperialist terror regime".
I wish people would've learned their lesson by abandoning the media that's obviously been lying to everyone for the past decades.
European friends are in full “support the troops” mode now
After laughing at USians for nigh on twenty years while saying, 'those guys never learn their lesson, they love guns and spend ridiculous amounts of money on wars of their own making yet they can't afford schools or hospitals.' Turns out, Europeans aren't so exceptional; when it comes to the crunch, all it takes is one month of news cycle and many people are happy to let themselves be fooled, once, twice, as many times as it takes. For shame.
Who knew this guy was an inspiring philosopher. Tbf to most irl people I know, most people are just aghast at the war and would like it to stop. Their opinion on NATO hasn't changed; they just believe what NATO and it's mouthpieces say about Russia.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=rQ6N-sb7SVQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
What's striking about it is how they have no comebacks, they have no arguments at all expect name-calling. You can show them all the evidence in the world and they'll just call you names. Simple minded morons. Normies.
Nah, no need for name calling. It's just effective propaganda and it works best on normies.
You're right, I need to be more patient with them.
Where's your evidence for people being ethnically cleansed in Ukraine, that Russia only invaded to free these people, and that they managed to free millions of people from ethnic cleansing? Show several sources for each claim, please.
Finally, still no proof Ukraine is performing ethnic cleansing, nor that Russia liberated millions from ethnic cleansing to justify their invasion.
Enforcing the use of Ukrainian languange for official use, while not a wholly positive thing, is not ethnic cleansing.
In your opinion. I think it's part of a slew of initiatives that constitute ethnic cleansing. Why do you think the fascist regime that reveres Nazis are doing this not wholly positive thing?
it suspiciously only captions the part that said things about filtration of Ukrainian citizens in Russian controlled regions. Not sure how much I trust it. The whole article also only refers to ‘planned’ or ‘proposed’ internment of Ukrainian with the major source being that untrustworthy YouTube video. Reference 5 no longer exists, while reference 6 doesn’t load for me. Reference 2 only refers to land rewards to be given to soldiers, nothing about ethnic cleansing.
It's not suspicious for a piece to focus on the most relevant part of the allegation. So they only planned or proposed internment of minorities? That's okay then. Where was this land supposed to come from that they were going to give to the soldiers?
We can go on about this all day but you're not going to accept anything that I provide. You stance amounts to: "They've been doing a lot of things that are very similar to ethnic cleansing but totally aren't because I don't like calling it that."
We both have different opinions, I think it's very clear what's been going on there. You just need to look at classroom scenarios like this one. If this was happening in China I'm sure you'd be up in arms.
I mean to insult their intelligence. These people believe what they hear on the news. They're stupid af.
How is this different from someone saying "let's just give Hitler Poland"
Are you saying the Ukrainians should stop fighting? Is that what you would do if someone invaded your home?
This rhetoric reminds of the German military's questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. "You say you're against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?" Great intellectual company you're keeping here.
How does mandatory military service relate to helping to fund another country from an invading force?
Should the other European nations not fight against the Nazis when they invaded other countries in order to not 'prolong' the war?
I'm comparing rhetorics. Read the post I was replying to and then mine again, please.
What's the point of comparing rhetoric that has nothing to do with each other? The comment you replied to compared it giving Poland away to Hitler since it both connected by the act of giving in to the demands of a dictator to avoid war, which WW2 has proven doesn't work. Your comment instead is comparing the act of giving into Putin's demand is equal to pacifists refusing mandatory military service, which sounds ridiculous.
However it’s not rhetoric. It’s cold hard history. Allowing a fascist dictator to invade a sovereign country led to WW2.
They liberated millions of people who were being ethnically cleansed by Ukraine's Nazis. That required invasion.
How did the countries (excepting Poland) who currently make up NATO respond when Hitler invaded Poland?
Yes, I am saying Ukraine should stop fighting. That's what hoping for an end of the war means. Ukraine should stop fighting and Russia should stop fighting. That's what peace entails. Or at least a ceasefire. Maybe the peace can come later, after peace talks.
In the meantime, NATO needs to stop sending weapons. Because it can't hope to supply Ukraine with enough to turn Russia around. And it can't hope to supply Ukraine with enough to maintain current lines until at least a year or two. So the alternative to stopping the fighting seems to be to prolongue a devastating and drawn out fight.
Is that what you would do if someone invaded your home?
That's the wrong question in the context. Ukraine was in civil war before the invasion. So either way, you're faced with a logic of both sides fighting off 'invaders'. You don't have to agree with the other side's claims (the separatists, for you, I imagine), but it's hard to deny that they would make that claim.
Further, were I empowered to make such decisions in similar circumstances in my country, I would never have (i) flirted with the US/NATO, (ii) given up my nukes only to later hint to NATO that I would host NATO nukes in my country, and (iii) have ignored the international treaties that I had signed, such as at Minsk or in Turkey.
Edit: grammar
To support a fascist dictatorship rife with Nazis? Sounds about right for an American.
lemmygrad is leaking again
Reality has a left wing bias.
And one of the worst uses of the 2 brain cells you have left. Your tax dollars are the driving force for war and misery across the globe for decades now, the only difference is that your government isn't hiding it anymore, because they know now that you zombies will give all your money for some entertainment on the news after shooting up a school.
if you want to call attention to the fucked up shit that the USA and NATO has done in the last couple of decades, comparing it with supplying weapons to a democracy to defend itself against an invading bunch of fascist war criminals is definitely NOT helping your case
edit: I have been informed that Ukraine isn't perfect, and that therefor the invasion and the long list of war crimes perpetrated by the invaders are justified
The propaganda really did a number on you. A democracy, jfc.
Democracy? The US and NATO aren't fighting for democracy. They are losing a cheap sex tourist destination in Eastern Europe because of this war. That's worth all those Billions! Don't give me the "defending democracy" excuse!
A democracy that recently announced that it postponed elections, a year after declaring the opposition parties as illegal.
They were banning opposition parties and arresting their members a long time before last year.
You know that postponing elections during a war is : a, fucking logical, because how to fuck are you going to get a representative vote if half of the country has fled or is on the frontline and b, their constitution says there can’t be elections during martial law. source Every fucking pro Russian troll arguments in this thread need to be ousted here before this place gets to be a Russian troll pit as well.
Just the reply I was expecting, thanks for walking right into the trap where you conveniently failed to even mention the opposition part.
And I'm the troll.
Edit:
Even Foreign Policy isn't as one-sided as you are in their portrayal of the situation:
Concern over the decision to postpone Ukraine’s elections has come from both Ukraine’s friends and foes. [...] On the other hand, PACE President Tiny Kox said that while he recognizes the enormity of the struggle Ukraine faces, the country must uphold its obligations under international agreements to hold elections. “It is up to [Ukraine] how to solve this challenge,” he told a Council of Europe summit in May, adding that “there will be no complaints against Ukraine if the elections are not ideal. But if you do not hold elections, then everyone will have questions about you … without elections, democracy is impossible.”
Unless PACE is also just a Russian troll. 🤡
But indeed, elections during war/state of emergency are unconstitutional and highly impractible. Still funny you dodged the opposition point I made.
Untill you give me a source that states that the opposition isn’t able to function, I’m going to treat that part of your argument as blatant misinformation.
It's crazy how some people can have such strong opinions about this conflict while being so uninformed at the same time.
The first one that dies in a war is the truth. Every party tries to steer the narrative. It’s hard to keep a neutral stance. Fact is that Russia invaded a sovereign country under the false pretenses of ‘denazification’ and ‘military operation’. No Ukraine is not a shining beacon of democracy. Yes they were open for nato membership, yes US politics was heavily involved, and no their special treaty with Russia to not do so does not fucking matter because Russia already invaded Ukraine in 2014 making that treaty void. If Russia wants peace, all they need to do is leave Ukraine, super simple. We all know that won’t happen because Putin’s small dick ego can’t handle that.
At least you're open about your complete lack of awareness of this war. It's shocking you're even participating in this discussion though. The arrogance of offloading basic research of topics from a year ago to someone else to prove that I'm not spreading misinformation is quite something though.
Ukraine has had to take extraordinary measures to fight Russia's invasion. Among them, the government has consolidated the country's television outlets and dissolved rival political parties.
Source is NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
Blocking opposition parties is not pretty. Not all opposition parties were blocked tough, only the ones with strong ties to Russia. source
Okay comrade...
Jawohl Herr Obersturmbannführer! Für das Vaterland!
It is all reflection.