|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland26032 Posts
On April 30 2022 06:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Back in 2002 and 2003, many Americans were saying Iraq didn't have WMD. That is exactly what Saddam Hussein was saying, and exactly what Saddam and his state run propaganda media wanted those Americans to say. So were those Americans Iraqi assets spouting Iraqi propaganda?
No they got called unpatriotic if memory serves.
Tucker’s relentless Devil’s advocacy for Russia hasn’t really aged well, I think it’s fair to say that at least.
Propaganda is a lot like pornography, I know it when I see it.
I haven’t consumed enough Tucker to really have much of an opinion beyond he should have been more judicious and well, sensible in some of his rhetoric, but hey that’s not really his brand.
If for, some reason I discovered that Kim Jung Un personally followed my TL posts and they were intermittently broadcast on North Korean TV, I might be curious as to why even if I had zero intent on being part of their propaganda machine.
I’ve never really said anything stronger on the Tucker Carlson’s of the world, although I know many do.
As per the Trump Jr points, I mean I just disagree with the America first ode, this particular conflict has really shown the usefulness of multilateralism. But it’s not an unreasonable position to hold either.
Corruption in Ukraine though as a reason to withhold aid is patently ridiculous given who’s saying it. Would be nice if corrupt nations were ostracised but why start with Ukraine?
I mean I’m sure it’s possible but I would assume it’s a bit trickier to hoard and embezzle aid in an active warzone, so there is that too.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 30 2022 06:59 WombaT wrote:
Corruption in Ukraine though as a reason to withhold aid is patently ridiculous given who’s saying it. Would be nice if corrupt nations were ostracised but why start with Ukraine?
Sorry, but it bothers me how anemic those arguments are compared to the obvious one. The idea that aid meant to increase Ukraine's defensive capabilities against a possible Russian invasion would be squandered due to corruption was literally just empirically tested, the results are in, the aid given to Ukraine since 2014 was more efficiently and competently put to its intended use than in the suppliers' wildest dreams.
|
Northern Ireland26032 Posts
On April 30 2022 06:49 Salazarz wrote:
Perhaps we just have a different understanding of what 'propaganda' is. It's an objective fact that corruption is high in Ukraine. Does Russia using that as an excuse for their insane invasion somehow make it less real?
Again, I completely agree that Trump Jr is a corrupt scumbag and that his take of 'Ukraine is corrupt so they don't deserve our aid' is pretty awful, but I do think there's an important distinction to be made. His take is awful because there are ways to deliver aid to Ukraine without it being lost to corruption, and because that aid is very much needed; not because corruption in Ukraine is a Russian fanfic invented by their propagandists and repeated by their puppets.
Fair, I’m just a little spiky because I keep encountering these weird creatures on even totally unrelated topics spouting the exact same crap
If I have dismissed stuff out of hand in such a fashion it’s purely exasperation, although hopefully I’ve been reasonable enough in my general posting.
My bad if I haven’t, agree 100% with your post there.
|
United States43219 Posts
On April 30 2022 07:37 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2022 06:59 WombaT wrote:
Corruption in Ukraine though as a reason to withhold aid is patently ridiculous given who’s saying it. Would be nice if corrupt nations were ostracised but why start with Ukraine? Sorry, but it bothers me how anemic those arguments are compared to the obvious one. The idea that aid meant to increase Ukraine's defensive capabilities against a possible Russian invasion would be squandered due to corruption was literally just empirically tested, the results are in, the aid given to Ukraine since 2014 was more efficiently and competently put to its intended use than in the suppliers' wildest dreams.
An excellent point. Why speculate about whether arming Ukraine provides value for money as Russia destroys itself on the Ukrainian army. As you say, the results are in.
|
On April 30 2022 07:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2022 06:49 Salazarz wrote:
Perhaps we just have a different understanding of what 'propaganda' is. It's an objective fact that corruption is high in Ukraine. Does Russia using that as an excuse for their insane invasion somehow make it less real?
Again, I completely agree that Trump Jr is a corrupt scumbag and that his take of 'Ukraine is corrupt so they don't deserve our aid' is pretty awful, but I do think there's an important distinction to be made. His take is awful because there are ways to deliver aid to Ukraine without it being lost to corruption, and because that aid is very much needed; not because corruption in Ukraine is a Russian fanfic invented by their propagandists and repeated by their puppets. Had he made a intelligent Tweet about what you are talking about, and had it been the first time it was lock step with Russian state TV, I would have made a different comment or none at all. But he did not, he made his classic edgelord unnuanced stir the pot comment, that matches Russian propaganda. Show nested quote +On April 30 2022 06:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Back in 2002 and 2003, many Americans were saying Iraq didn't have WMD. That is exactly what Saddam Hussein was saying, and exactly what Saddam and his state run propaganda media wanted those Americans to say. So were those Americans Iraqi assets spouting Iraqi propaganda? I did not say he was a Russian asset, in fact I said its likely the opposite and that it is sad that it is in their self interest to repeat it. And yes they would be matching Iraqi state news. The spectacular flaw in your argument here is that Trump senior was explicitly trying to be corrupt with Zelensky and he rejected it. And that part of the reason Russia invaded was because Ukraine was trying to get less corrupt. And that Trump did not do what Jr is saying he should have as brought up by others. Not shockingly they have been getting better (though still not good) since they ousted the Russian supporting government. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021/index/ukr
Let's not forget that the trump administration, unlike the Obama administration, provided lethal aid to Ukraine. Its not so simple that you can just point to trumps first impeachment as a slam dunk argument on anything related to ukraine. Trump's lethal aid was of great help to Zelensky and Ukraine.
When Don Jr said that financial aid to Ukraine might be diverted due to corruption, and the US should spend that money on Americans instead, he was being perfectly reasonable (and like usual there is no valid collusion or kompromat or Russian asset theory here), even if there are many things that you really don't like about Trump Sr or you think Trump Sr didn't always act in accordance with what Jr is advocating.
|
|
|
The lethal aid I'm referring to is weapons as opposed to money. Guess it's possible that weapons could be diverted because of corruption, but seems less likely.
|
|
|
Money is pretty clearly easier to divert and benefit from than weapons.
|
|
|
The initial refusal of Trump to greenlight the transfer of aid to Ukraine cannot be tied to the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2022.
At that time, Russia was not openly invading Ukraine, other than a small-scale skirmish that had already been happening for years in the Donbas. I do not think that anyone at that time, no matter their background, would have considered impending invasion as a factor in any decision to provide aid to Ukraine.
This does not excuse him of his behaviour, but to argue he would do the same now is to completely ignore the changed circumstances and is an unfair argument.
|
United States24740 Posts
The main reason to provide military aid to Ukraine was to insure against a 2022 Russo-Ukranian war. Perhaps Trump didn't think such a war would happen and thus didn't greenlight the level of requested aid. That's different from saying you shouldn't tie the two together. It just means Trump (and many others) may have been very naive and didn't learn from the lessons of history (or maybe was pro Putin/invasion, who knows)
The initial refusal of Trump to greenlight fire insurance for his yacht cannot be tied to the 2022 fire that burned his yacht. At that time, the yacht had not experienced any small fires or near misses, other than the one time Trump's guest dropped a lit cigarette on the carpet. I do not think anyone at that time, no matter their background, would have considered an impending major fire as a factor in any decision about whether or not the yacht should be insured against fire.
This does not excuse Trump of his decision not to get fire insurance, contrary to best practice at the time, but to argue he would do the same now is to completely ignore the changed circumstances now that he lost his yacht to a fire, and is an unfair argument.
|
|
|
On April 30 2022 21:23 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial refusal of Trump to greenlight the transfer of aid to Ukraine cannot be tied to the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2022.
At that time, Russia was not openly invading Ukraine, other than a small-scale skirmish that had already been happening for years in the Donbas. I do not think that anyone at that time, no matter their background, would have considered impending invasion as a factor in any decision to provide aid to Ukraine.
This does not excuse him of his behaviour, but to argue he would do the same now is to completely ignore the changed circumstances and is an unfair argument.
At the time, Russia had already invaded Ukraine, having outright annexed Crimea in 2014.
|
On April 30 2022 23:34 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2022 21:23 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial refusal of Trump to greenlight the transfer of aid to Ukraine cannot be tied to the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2022.
At that time, Russia was not openly invading Ukraine, other than a small-scale skirmish that had already been happening for years in the Donbas. I do not think that anyone at that time, no matter their background, would have considered impending invasion as a factor in any decision to provide aid to Ukraine.
This does not excuse him of his behaviour, but to argue he would do the same now is to completely ignore the changed circumstances and is an unfair argument. At the time, Russia had already invaded Ukraine, having outright annexed Crimea in 2014.
That's conveniently ignoring the fact that it was not widely viewed as a wholescale invasion of Ukraine, but a dispute over some contested territories.
|
On May 01 2022 01:18 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2022 23:34 Kyadytim wrote:On April 30 2022 21:23 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial refusal of Trump to greenlight the transfer of aid to Ukraine cannot be tied to the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2022.
At that time, Russia was not openly invading Ukraine, other than a small-scale skirmish that had already been happening for years in the Donbas. I do not think that anyone at that time, no matter their background, would have considered impending invasion as a factor in any decision to provide aid to Ukraine.
This does not excuse him of his behaviour, but to argue he would do the same now is to completely ignore the changed circumstances and is an unfair argument. At the time, Russia had already invaded Ukraine, having outright annexed Crimea in 2014. That's conveniently ignoring the fact that it was not widely viewed as a wholescale invasion of Ukraine, but a dispute over some contested territories.
I may be wrong, but wasn't Crimea part of Ukraine when it was annexed by Russia? If Crimea was considered part of Ukraine at that time, then Russia absolutely invaded Ukraine at that time. I know I'm just using Wikipedia here, to get a little idea of the situation, but:
"In February and March 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. This event took place in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity and is part of the wider Russo-Ukrainian War."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#:~:text=In February and March 2014,the wider Russo-Ukrainian War.
and
"The Russo-Ukrainian War[20][e] is an ongoing war between Russia (together with pro-Russian separatist forces) and Ukraine.[f] It began in February 2014 following the Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity, and initially focused on the status of Crimea and parts of the Donbas, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. The first eight years of the conflict included the Russian annexation of Crimea (2014) and the war in Donbas (2014–present) between Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists, as well as naval incidents, cyberwarfare, and political tensions. Following a Russian military build-up on the Russia–Ukraine border from late 2021, the conflict expanded significantly when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
So I don't know how relevant Trump is, to this entire situation, but it certainly seems to be the case that the Crimea annexation is one example of Russia "openly invading Ukraine" (your original words). You don't have to invade every inch of the country to be considered invading the country. Invading part of the country still counts as invading. Your recent introduction of the new word "wholescale", to represent that invasion, seems to be backpedaling.
|
|
|
On May 01 2022 01:18 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2022 23:34 Kyadytim wrote:On April 30 2022 21:23 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial refusal of Trump to greenlight the transfer of aid to Ukraine cannot be tied to the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2022.
At that time, Russia was not openly invading Ukraine, other than a small-scale skirmish that had already been happening for years in the Donbas. I do not think that anyone at that time, no matter their background, would have considered impending invasion as a factor in any decision to provide aid to Ukraine.
This does not excuse him of his behaviour, but to argue he would do the same now is to completely ignore the changed circumstances and is an unfair argument. At the time, Russia had already invaded Ukraine, having outright annexed Crimea in 2014. That's conveniently ignoring the fact that it was not widely viewed as a wholescale invasion of Ukraine, but a dispute over some contested territories. Yeah no, the annexation of Crimea is not seen as 'merely' a dispute over contested territory.
The hint is in the way its referred to, annexation. Taking land that belongs to someone else and adding it to your own country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
