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

Let's be rational and overall functional.

The real goal is to stop this war: US troops in Ukraine wouldn't stop this war.
That's not the right approach.

We should keep in mind that Russia is a military giant, but an economical dwarf.
This means that sanctions could stop Russia. So why to waste military equipment and personnel if the banks can solve all?

 

Help the Ukrainians win. I'm fine with limiting that to giving them better equipment, especially facilitating the transfer of MiGs and providing better anti-air capabilities.

 

It's a bit of a race against time, trying to shut them down economically while they shut Ukraine down militarily.

 

I don't think I've been worried about WWIII breaking out because of sending the Ukrainians equipment.

 

You need to take this guy seriously. The world is not out of the woods just yet.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/putin-ukraine-world-war-3-risk-by-george-soros-2022-03

Vladimir Putin and the Risk of World War III
Mar 11, 2022 GEORGE SOROS

After receiving a green light from Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his war in Ukraine in an effort to reclaim the old Russian empire. But both leaders appear to have misjudged the situation, raising the prospect of a global catastrophe – unless they are removed from power.

SAN FRANCISCO – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24 was the beginning of a third world war that has the potential to destroy our civilization. The invasion was preceded by a long meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on February 4 – the beginning of the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations and the Beijing Winter Olympic Games. At the end of that meeting, the two men released a 5,000-word, carefully drafted document announcing a close partnership between their two countries. The document is stronger than any treaty and must have required detailed negotiations in advance.

 

To keep to the issue at hand, I show that you have zero proof that a Right- dominated Media, would have any impact on the lack of coverage which you bemoan, in your post. Rather, all indications, are that humanitarian crises would be getting only Less coverage, if our media were under the control of the likes of Breitbart and OANN. Except, that is, when the circumstances would allow the media to lambaste a DEMOCRATIC President over the matter, right?

Your argument holds no water-- what, there are not local newspapers, all over Red America, that have Conservative Editorial Boards? And where are all the editorials about these humanitarian crises?

I remember that Don Imus once mocked the physical features of the black players on a woman's college basketball team-- do you count that as coverage?

 

And Putin is just going to let us fly in there unopposed? Suppose he cruise missiles the airfields our aircraft depart from? What would you recommend be the response to that?

 

This sounds more like ranting than a counter argument.

 

Other than my little poke at Imus, study the rest, so you will (apparently, finally) be able to learn, what a counter argument looks like.

This thread was about the question of joining the war, in Ukraine. The most prominent idea, in your OP, was the surprising popularity of this sentiment, among Americans. I commented on how much the News Media has played a part in this phenomenon.

You, then, tried to run with that, off on a tangent, about the reason that we have not seen this type of coverage, on other humanitarian crises, being because of the "Democratic Left's" control of that media. This is a strawman, partisan argument, against Democrats, UNLESS you can offer some evidence, that a Conservative Right led media, would be any different.

Not only did you offer nothing to substantiate that idea, but simple observation of the behavior of Right Wing Media, disproves any implication that they would be more focused on human rights violations, regardless of where, & to whom, they occurred, than our present MSM. The only obvious truth, is that they would make a bigger deal-- as they generally do, now-- over any issue they felt would make Democratic politicians look bad. Therefore, you failed to show any cause to specifically single out and name particular media, as the problem. If the foregoing argument sounds like "ranting," to you, there is something wrong with your ears.



The essence of your complaint, is also the reason that you consider the Mainstream Media to have a Left- leaning bias: the country as a whole, and hence the most popular news of the country, is further left than yourself. Well boo- hoo. If the majority of the country shared your views-- guess what: our most popular news would reflect that! So your complaint only comes down to that your personal perspective, and that of others "on the Right," is not the majority perspective, so not the slant of the majority of the news media. But this has zero to do with greater coverage of humanitarian crises. So your wild-mule-chase of an argument, I have here, debunked. (Now, might be a good time for you to go get your hearing checked).

 

Because the banks have never solved a problem the scale of modern day Russia.

I would gladly support the U.S. going to war with Russia has long as we had the goal of utterly defeating Russia and crushing them out of existence as a nation. And if we had the right political and military leadership here in the U.S. to do so.

 

You will be voting for those candidates, it then follows, who are the closest to being madmen. Being in possession of a nuclear stockpile like Russia, or the U.S, precludes a conquering by conventional means, without entailing nuclear warfare. You could not find a single, responsible officer in our military, who had the slightest wit of what he was talking about, who would tell you any different.

 

And if the U.S. could destroy the vast bulk of the Russian nuclear arsenal before it could be launched? And soak of most of the rest with ABMs?

 

So we are playing the wishing game? Or do you wish to propose a feasible way to do this?

 

Building and deploying thousands of ABMs is well established technology. All it requires is setting the goals and authorizing the money.

 

I don't know this answer, but 50% means its about a 50/50 split and this high water mark is actually pretty damn low to start a war with . Its lower than either Bush presidents were able to get before their troops marched into Iraq. That number tends to goes up a little once the troops start actually fighting, and then its a down hill slope and a set of skies as the casualties start showing up.

You need this support to start in the 60's and not substantially lower in any either party to sustain a war long.

 

What about missiles launched from their submarines?

Also:

That word, "most," is a problem. You realize that even a few strikes, could end up killing millions, if they were in a major city, like New York, L.A., Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Dallas, San Diego, San Jose, San Antonio... you get the idea: the places targeted by the majority of Russia's missiles.

You, personally, may be willing to to take that risk, in order to kill 100 million Russians but, FYI, most people will consider that very disturbed thinking, to say the least. Nuclear War is very much considered something to be avoided, at nearly all costs. That explains NATO's timidity, in Ukraine.

Just thought should know.

 

This isn’t the greatest generation we are talking about here.

 

Sanctions don’t work on a fully autonomous leader that doesn’t care about his people. All sanctions mean is that Putin will still live like a god while his people suffer. And he doesn’t care. Especially if the rumors of his cancer are true

 

So you are complaining that I can't "prove" that left wing media dominates the culture even though you believe that "the country as a whole, and hence the most popular news of the country, is further left than yourself." Well yes, I do agree with that, the country, as a whole, is further left than where I am. So why are you so shocked that the country's media is too? Anyway your main argument is bogus:

"...the reason that we have not seen this type of coverage, on other humanitarian crises, being because of the "Democratic Left's" control of that media. This is a strawman, partisan argument, against Democrats, UNLESS you can offer some evidence, that a Conservative Right led media, would be any different."

That's absurd. I can see that because what becomes big stories in the media don't seem to be big stories, but are big stories for their agenda. But this is all an attempt of derailing the thread by you. Feel free to start another thread on media bias, but my comment is about how the media is, based on polling, pushing the country to "do something" in the case of Ukraine even though there are far greater human tragedies going on in the world right now that get effectively zero coverage.

 

Right. We are not anywhere like the 70% support Bush had for the Iraq War. That means the media still has much work to do, but we're on the way.

 

I walk on my treadmill every day. It's got a tv, and I watch both local and national news. I see people, mostly Ukrainians, asking for us to get directly involved.

But every time, without fail, there is commentary saying direct involvement means war, and likely WW3.

Speaking of World Wars, they've all started in Europe, what a f***ing coincidence.

You get this from some lunatic source like Fox???

 

Did you see that on Fox?

 

You didn't answer the question, typical.

I don't watch Fox, it's Faux...

 

Armchair warriors are a dime-a-dozen here in the US. Men who never served a day in uniform are self-described experts in warfare. They are ready to sacrifice others, and the sons of others, from their armchair, indoctrinated with Neocon Pentagon types.

 

They are afraid of Putin who is a obviously conservative.
The whole thing with this war is a blow to the leftist movement.
I hope people realize that men they should be men again, not semi-gender-cis-sexual sissies.