AOC confronted by protester accusing her of 'voting to start nuclear war'

LOL. I pointed out how that is a nonsense position.

Getting NATO nations to pay more would also be the first logical step in the USA backing away.

 

So Iraq was not about Iraqi Freedom? So why was Operation Iraqi Freedom called Operation Iraqi Freedom? Of course it was not actually about Iraqi Freedom. But all of these wars are sold as fighting for freedom. And yet people keep falling for it.

Western governance? WTF is that? Some fancy word for globalism?

As a tax payer why should my tax money be used to support protecting someone else's border when the US border is wide open? Why should the US be engaging in nuclear brinkmanship with a nuclear power. How is this in our interest. Again, what is the ROI? Will the American public be presented with a risk assesment discussing benefits along with consequences and the cost of things going wrong? Of course, they will not. And certainly a risk assement based discussion will not be presented in this thread by you or likely by any of the other commentators. Wars always start of with a lot of jingoism, a lot of rah rah, and a cavalier attitude and always end with unforseen consequences.

 

The United States of America, the American Revolution, and the American Constitution are an example of why we do not need a professional political class. This country was created by people who came from the real world.

 

No, I don't believe they actually directly promote conflict.

But in the end, the peace that must finally emerge in Ukraine is guided by more than military capability and options in Ukraine. While the military situation in Ukraine is important, the US position has to be broader and more focused on resulting in a peace, ensuring we don't reach nuclear war, recognizing Russia's overall options and the politics inside Russia, etc.
---
I will say that wars DO become more likely as our military might and the military might of others increases.

We get involved in wars that we think our military power can handle. We thought we could handle Afg, Iraq, Vietnam, etc., etc. with our military. We end up thinking that a military solution will be fast and easy, so other directions for peace become deemphasized, especially since war sounds fast and and our power impossible to oppose while negotiation sounds slow and requires the participation of those we oppose.

We were told Iraq would take less than a month! We were NOT told what we would be left with. That's not unique.

 

You make an excellent point. The objective of the defense industry is simply to make money.

And what exactly is the US Objective? According to the DOD web site I just looked at our objective is "is working with Allies and partners to support Ukraine in their fight for sovereignty and freedom." It is not clear to me exactly what that means.

 

Yes and no. Many of the U.S. founding fathers had immediate practical experience in governing.

 

Good point - that is a significantly limited statement of objective, I think.

 

Also, a good number were strong students of government, well read in history and philosophy of government.

 

Trump remains Putin's bleached blond bitch no matter how many hoops Trump/Putin devotees jump through claiming he's not.

"37 times Trump was soft on Russia"

Analysis by Marshall Cohen, CNN
Updated 10:36 AM EDT, Tue August 4, 2020


https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia

 

Nazi Germany also declared war on the USA, so there's that.

 

Bizarre innit. America standing up for a democracy being invaded by a dictatorship is bad now.

 

Yes and no.

Whoever takes over next may well be extremely unpleasant in even more ways than Putin. However, that person will be MUCH weaker than Putin and heavily focussed on keeping power & fixing all the problems Putin has created. They also won't be committed to Putin's policies. I would count that as an improvement.

Not guaranteed, but likely.

 

It was also the 18th century and America wasn't very big. A bit different to now.

 

No, I was talking about the Ukrainian Nazis shelling Donbas for years. As they did in Syria, the Russian invaders are attempting to protect the citizens of Donbas.

 

Over Trump and internet posters, all the time. If you think our national security is not protected by such agencies, god bless.

 

Make up whatever logic you need to excuse Trump.

 

Psst...Russia isn't communist anymore. IMO, one is more likely to encounter a communist in the US than in Russia.

 

Trump wasn't on Putin's side but Trump wasn't against Putin either. Just like Trump wasn't against communist China or North Korea, for examples.

Problem with the Russian V. Ukranian conflict is that too many people were/are against Putin. This is a problem 'cause Ukrainians are being massacred in the process.

 

So, you were OK with cops in Alabama, for example, using water cannons and police dogs against blacks in the 1960s?

 

The people of Luhansk and Donetsk don't want to be a part of Ukraine. There was this referendum in 2012 and again in 2022 stating that they didn't want to be a part of Ukraine.

Ukraine is bombing and killing people in Luhansk and Donetsk 'cause the people of Donetsk and Luhansk don't want to be a part of Ukraine.

 

Ukraine attacked the provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk in Ukraine.

 

False. They were fighting the Wagner Group of invaders

 

The people of Donetsk and Luhansk are like the American Indians. They're subjugated (and then put on reservations).

 

Communist or not, Russia is always "Russian".

 

Maybe they should build casinos then.