Who does—and doesn’t—support sending U.S. troops to Ukraine

Back in the real world, Biden was sent by the USA, the EU and the IMF to clean Ukraine up. It's still not perfect, but it got cleaner as a result of the West leaning on them heavily.

Our Rightys get so much bass ackwards, don't they?

 

Except the rightys ignored the EU and IMF and just hinge it on Biden and Biden alone when he was VP.

 

They get pretty much everything wrong, on purpose.

 

Well I think you have a basic point about news coverage. Obviously the news coverage of the civil wars in Ethiopia and Yemen have not gotten nearly as much coverage as Ukraine, in spite of the massive difference in the amount of civilian casualties in these conflicts. But the people who basically edit the news, and cover it, are liberal left Democrats. They determine what America cares about. Russia took Crimea in 2014 but that didn't generate a smidgen of the coverage as the Ukraine war does. My guess, based on who determines what's news and what isn't, is that news media wasn't very interested in highlighting the Obama administration's failure of it's Russia policy and the failure of the Secretary of State's "reset" policy, since they had already determined she was going to be the President in 2016.

 

Just curious but do you have kids?

 

While there are real differences between Russia taking over Crimea in 2014 and this invasion, the major difference in treatment of the subject is IMO something else. It has to do with what was going on behind the headlines regarding Trump, Russia, Syria, Russiagate, Ukraine, impeachment, NATO and a partially aborted "bargain" with Putin. To put it in simple terms, Ukraine's invasion and the frenzied reactions to it even before Putin made the move represent the death blows to any bargains with Russia that also happened to jeopardize Nato's reason d'etre. Trump having failed to live up to his end of the bargain despite the Russians doing US/Israeli bidding in Syria viz a viz Iran and in its acquiescence of Israeli annexations under Netanyahu, Putin basically felt he was going to take what he had been promised in return. The rest is the usual propaganda aided and abetted by gross tactical mistakes on the part of the Russian military.

 

...that's an interesting thought....although I hesitate because Trump demonstrably hasn't the intellect or capacity to entertain that level and depth of thinking...as "useful idiot" though? Interesting

 

The idea of this bargain with Putin was cooked up elsewhere and didn't originate with Trump. But Trump liked the idea.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...or-trump-to-strike-a-grand-bargain-with-putin
Israeli, Saudi, and Emirati Officials Privately Pushed for Trump to Strike a “Grand Bargain” with Putin
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/02/11/donald-trump-seeks-a-grand-bargain-with-vladimir-putin
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29/trump-could-reset-russia-ties-in-grand-bargain-with-putin.html
https://www.thenationalnews.com/opi...grand-bargain-over-syria-and-ukraine-1.750035

 

The Ukrainians have kids. The Russians seem to enjoy shooting at them as well.

 

@Lil Mike

It’s a good question because whenever we decide it’s time to go to war, who do we send? Who do we kill, maim, and give PTSD?

It isn’t a bunch of fat, middle aged armchair warriors. No …

It’s our kids.

 

Wikipedia is a source I will never read, may as well let me edit your post. However I did look it up and it seems it was a mistake. However it was wrong, that does not mean two wrongs make a right.

 

Another reason I will never vote for a democrat again.

 

We've already been in too many damned wars since WW2 ??? And none of them have gone well for us other than our invasion of Granada.

 

No problem, I'll give you the real source.

On 3 October 2015, US airstrikes destroyed our trauma hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing 42 people

https://www.msf.org/kunduz-hospital-attack-depth

'The view from inside the hospital is that this attack was conducted with a purpose to kill and destroy. But we don’t know why.'

CHRISTOPHER STOKES, MSF GENERAL DIRECTOR

 

You have to expect the real possibility of aerial dogfights, with a no- fly zone. So you're saying, if we shoot down Russian jets, Putin would have no recourse, other than to attack a NATO country, which he wouldn't do?

Secondly, why do you see his using nukes as "dumber," than the things with which he's currently engaged, which already include what could likely be considered "war crimes?" In other words, you feel that this would compel greater involvement of NATO, in the face of nuclear use by Putin? Even though NATO troops would assure more nuclear use, if Putin had already tapped that well? Do you believe that anything takes precedence for him, in this situation, over winning?

Why not provide the jets to let Ukraine defend its own skies? I know they would still be badly overmatched, but they've been doing a fair job, just with what anti-aircraft weapons we've so far sent. Clearly, Russia's ability to coordinate it's forces, had been overrated.

Lastly, to play devil's advocate here-- because I know the same thing can be said of supplying planes to Ukraine, which I still favor-- if you were President, how much of risk of Putin using tactical nukes (not strategic missiles), would you accept as tolerable? Would a 1% chance of letting the atomic genie out of its bottle, be too much? How about 0.5%?

 

Why don't you think the almost 70 year old Putin would hesitate to start a nuclear war ??? He clearly doesn't give a damn about the average Russian citizen otherwise he wouldn't be bringing down the present misery he is inflicting upon them.

 

The part of your post in red, is nothing but partisan bull shtank. That there is not a powerful RIGHT WING Media in this country, is a laughably sad denial of reality. So, unless you can cite a greater coverage of the wars in Yemen or Ethiopia-- or the genocide in Myanmar, or the persecution in the D.R., of Dominican citizens of Haitian descent, illegally (by international law) being deprived of their sole citizen status-- by FOX NEWS, or The Wall Street Journal, or Sinclair Media, or any of the many, many "Conservative," to rabidly Right wing Media sites, around the country, your are only spouting the type of fantasies that sicken, and weaken, our nation.


P.S.-- How often did Rush Limbaugh use to talk about the wars in Ethiopia & Yemen? And, if he did, was his attitude different than, "who cares?" How about Tucker Carlson? What stands is he taking on these important issues of injustice, and crimes against humanity, the awareness of which are being shielded from the public, by the "liberal Left Democratic" News Media? What a joke.

 

Exact opposite. He has taken upon himself to protect Russians and Christianity from constant attacks from Mordor. His biggest sin is the restoration of Christianity in Russia.

 

The Ukrainians are in the midst of a war. Their kids are already at great risk. I'm curious about Americans who want to instigate WWIII and seem to be willing with having our entire civilization go up in a blaze of glory.

I simply think parents would be less willing to risk that.

 

Well I'm pretty confident that the people who are rootin' and tootin' to fight the Russians won't be doing any actual fighting.

 

I don't know why you buy into this fear mongering nonsense about WWIII. Stopping Russia's brutal military conquest of Ukraine is not "instigating" any world war.

 

I think the Gulf War was a success.

 

oops delete....

 

Sometimes, things can be both partisan and true at the same time. From your three examples (and you've almost exhausted the possibilities with them!) The Wall Street Journal is every bit as left in it's reporting as the New York Times. The difference is that it has a conservative opinion page. Fox and Sinclair together account for only a small percentage of news media in this country. They are not setting the agenda.

So you don't think major media editorial control has any impact on coverage of Ukraine vs Yemen?

 

"Stopping Russia's brutal military conquest of Ukraine" is a euphemism. Say exactly what you want the US to do.