Ukraine is game to you?

[HuskyDeac]

Republicans are using this in bad faith, but the fact that we have 100’s of billions for Ukraine and are offering entire households in the wildfires 700 bucks is a bad look. Especially after Biden had “no comment” after asked.

Agreed, should've given Hawaiians at least $5,000 worth of cluster munitions each.

 

[deaconson]

So why did republicans try to default on Federal debt by insisting on cutting spending on everything but the military?

They were not specifically and sufficiently profiting from those programs?

 

[birdman]

I can’t believe Biden, in defending his actions on the Maui fires, said “Maui is an Island. It’s surrounded by water, BIG water, Ocean water….”

 

[ConnorEl]

Republicans do everything in bad faith. 6 months ago they nearly defaulted on US debt demanding spending cuts on everything but the military and they are going to shut the government down in October doing the same thing but today they are going to blame Joe Biden for not spending enough money.

Yep

 

[ConnorEl]

First this was all started because some alt-right dipshit reporter didnt hear Biden but used lip reading interpretation then it got picked up into the conservative outrage machine. Second, I’m pretty sure the 700 is an immediate assistance as the quickest possible thing while FEMA does its normal paper work of vetting and payout to disaster victims. Then if you want more money like all the right wing warriors declare tell congress to authorize it I’m sure Biden will sign it that day.

Wait…you mean the federal response to the Hawaii fires isn’t yet complete?!

 

[sailordeac]

If you think this is about us actually trying to help Ukraine you are watching the wrong movie amigo. I mean this nicely but no one really cares about UKR - the investment is all about permanently neutering Russia’s expansionist interest - which I’d say we’ve accomplished quite successfully.

Fine. The mission of blunting Russia's interest in expanding toward the West has been accomplished because Russia could not and cannot take Ukraine. (As an aside, nothing is forever, and Russia may decide to expand in central Asia.) Then let's end the war that no one can win, a war that will only lead to more senseless deaths, casualties, and destruction, and perhaps a nuclear catastrophe. Why do the Biden administration and many of its supporters refuse this - the only - compassionate and sensible path?

Once it became clear that Russia would not be able to overrun Ukraine, it also became obvious that there would eventually have to be an independent Ukraine recognized by Russia and an internationally recognized peace agreement. The alternative is a continuing stalemate and the attendant death toll and destruction. No matter how many people die in the meantime, the solution will inevitably be a cession of the Russian majority, or Russian occupied, territories to Russia and an independent Ukraine that can begin the process of eventual membership in the European Union, as well as enjoy certain border and non-aggression guarantees, which probably will fall short of complete NATO membership.

Once the stalemate became clear, it also became clear that the ultimate decision on war and peace lies not in Moscow, not in Kyiv, not in Brussels, but in Washington. Ask yourself this: do you want the current administration or some future Republican administration to achieve the peace?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

If you think this is about us actually trying to help Ukraine you are watching the wrong movie amigo. I mean this nicely but no one really cares about UKR - the investment is all about permanently neutering Russia’s expansionist interest - which I’d say we’ve accomplished quite successfully.

i don’t know if you can call it a proxy war, but we have definitely made it so that Ukraine will run out of fighters before they run out of weapons.

 

[deaconson]

I, for one, am shocked good faith republicans no longer want endless warfare when a democRAT is in the white house.

 

[ConnorEl]

Pretty sure nobody but Putin and a few of his asshole cronies wanted this war of Russian aggression. The US and Europe are rightly trying to minimize Russian success without falling into direct military combat or WWIII.

It’s not a surprising it’s taking a while, at significant cost, to come to some negotiated conclusion.

Criticism should be rightly aimed at Russia/Putin.

 

[deaconson]

Naw. Sleepy Dark Joe Brandon has earned all the credit for this disaster of a war he's running. We thought it was trump but, turns out putin's actually the puppet.

 

[OldGoldBeard]

Fine. The mission of blunting Russia's interest in expanding toward the West has been accomplished because Russia could not and cannot take Ukraine. (As an aside, nothing is forever, and Russia may decide to expand in central Asia.) Then let's end the war that no one can win, a war that will only lead to more senseless deaths, casualties, and destruction, and perhaps a nuclear catastrophe. Why do the Biden administration and many of its supporters refuse this - the only - compassionate and sensible path?

Once it became clear that Russia would not be able to overrun Ukraine, it also became obvious that there would eventually have to be an independent Ukraine recognized by Russia and an internationally recognized peace agreement. The alternative is a continuing stalemate and the attendant death toll and destruction. No matter how many people die in the meantime, the solution will inevitably be a cession of the Russian majority, or Russian occupied, territories to Russia and an independent Ukraine that can begin the process of eventual membership in the European Union, as well as enjoy certain border and non-aggression guarantees, which probably will fall short of complete NATO membership.

Once the stalemate became clear, it also became clear that the ultimate decision on war and peace lies not in Moscow, not in Kyiv, not in Brussels, but in Washington. Ask yourself this: do you want the current administration or some future Republican administration to achieve the peace?

Lots of good points here. If history has taught us anything, it's that, if you appease an imperialistic dictator by giving him a swath of another country's sovereign territory, said dictator is completely satisfied and will never again evince aggressive or expansionist tendencies.

Examples range from Napoleon to Hitler, but there's another that hits closer to home. In 2014, an obscure former Soviet republic called Russia was led by a Vladimir Putin. In February, Putin annexed a portion of another former Soviet state called Ukraine and supported separatists who set up pro-Russian puppet states in two other areas. Despite fierce Ukrainian resistance and Western protests, Russia ended up keeping the land.

True to form, Putin never again disturbed the peace by invading Ukraine or any other country. Instead, he lived a quiet life as an equestrian and passed away surrounded by friends and family following a short battle with a fall from an eighth-story window.

 

[ConnorEl]

If history has taught us anything, it's that, if you appease an imperialistic dictator by giving him a swath of another country's sovereign territory, said dictator is completely satisfied and will never again evince aggressive or expansionist tendencies.

lol

 

[Liquid Karma]

Fine. The mission of blunting Russia's interest in expanding toward the West has been accomplished because Russia could not and cannot take Ukraine. (As an aside, nothing is forever, and Russia may decide to expand in central Asia.) Then let's end the war that no one can win, a war that will only lead to more senseless deaths, casualties, and destruction, and perhaps a nuclear catastrophe. Why do the Biden administration and many of its supporters refuse this - the only - compassionate and sensible path?

Once it became clear that Russia would not be able to overrun Ukraine, it also became obvious that there would eventually have to be an independent Ukraine recognized by Russia and an internationally recognized peace agreement. The alternative is a continuing stalemate and the attendant death toll and destruction. No matter how many people die in the meantime, the solution will inevitably be a cession of the Russian majority, or Russian occupied, territories to Russia and an independent Ukraine that can begin the process of eventual membership in the European Union, as well as enjoy certain border and non-aggression guarantees, which probably will fall short of complete NATO membership.

Once the stalemate became clear, it also became clear that the ultimate decision on war and peace lies not in Moscow, not in Kyiv, not in Brussels, but in Washington. Ask yourself this: do you want the current administration or some future Republican administration to achieve the peace?

What's life like as a cuck? Do you just sit in a chair watching, head hung in shame?

 

[WakeForestRanger]

 

[dartsndeacs]

NYT reports things we've known for a year now?

 

[sailordeac]

Lots of good points here. If history has taught us anything, it's that, if you appease an imperialistic dictator by giving him a swath of another country's sovereign territory, said dictator is completely satisfied and will never again evince aggressive or expansionist tendencies.

Examples range from Napoleon to Hitler, but there's another that hits closer to home. In 2014, an obscure former Soviet republic called Russia was led by a Vladimir Putin. In February, Putin annexed a portion of another former Soviet state called Ukraine and supported separatists who set up pro-Russian puppet states in two other areas. Despite fierce Ukrainian resistance and Western protests, Russia ended up keeping the land.

True to form, Putin never again disturbed the peace by invading Ukraine or any other country. Instead, he lived a quiet life as an equestrian and passed away surrounded by friends and family following a short battle with a fall from an eighth-story window.

Ah, yes, the lessons of history! Before you give yourself an "A", however, you should know what most serious sophomore students of history should have already learned: what history teaches us depends on the events chosen and the ideology that possesses you. (It also helps to know a little bit about the background of the events you choose to learn from.)

The event you invoke is the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine and argue - employing sarcasm - that based on the lessons of history one cannot cede territory to the aggressor because otherwise, presumably, his appetite will only be vetted and he will continue his aggression, and he will further encroach on your territory in the future.

(As an aside, the results of the Russia-Ukraine war are not yet knowable, and neither are its lessons.)

But in any event, let's take a look at a couple of other examples, and test your thesis.

How about the War of the Austrian Succession? It was started by Prussia, the aggressor, attacking and seizing Silesia, which was a part of the Austrian Empire. The war ended with Austria ceding Silesia to Prussia. Aggression rewarded? Right? A no-no under your argument because it will only whet the appetite of the Prussian aggressor to keep encroaching on Austria's territory. Actually, the next war, the Seven Years' War was initiated by Austria in an effort to recover Silesia. Austria failed. Nevertheless, within a few years Austria and Prussia, along with Russia, were partners in the partitions of Poland and after that, they were allies in the wars against Napoleon. Your lesson fails if we consider these events.

Let's consider the example of the Mexican-American War. The US aggressor ended up with huge chunks of Mexican territory, almost the size of the Louisiana Purchase. Under your thesis, one would think that the US has ever since been encroaching on and militarily seizing territory from Mexico. Hey, the southern border of the US must be south of Mexico City by now! Wrong. Once again your lesson does not work very well.

Under your lesson of history, one might conclude that if you do confront and stop an aggressor and deny him any territorial acquisitions, his taste for aggression will be blunted, and he will no longer threaten his neighbors. OK, let's have a look at World War I. In this conflict, the German aggressor was soundly defeated, its entire system of autocratic government overthrown, and replaced with a liberal democratic one. Germany was even stripped of considerable territories, its armed forces were practically eliminated, and the country had to agree to pay for the war. Well, I guess that solved the problem. Military aggression was confronted, defeated, and punished. No more danger of Germany attacking its neighbors. Right? Never mind World War II. Actually, your thesis leads to erroneous conclusions once again.

As I noted in the post to which you objected, Russia's aggressive designs toward the West have already been blunted by its inability to take Ukraine. It is time for peace. And part of the price for that peace will have to be that Russian majority territories, which were never traditionally a part of Ukraine anyway, will be ceded by Ukraine to Russia. You do believe in self-determination, don't you?

 

[birdman]

Sailor, the US was not ruled by a dictator during the U.S.-Mexican war.

 

[sailordeac]

Sailor, the US was not ruled by a dictator during the U.S.-Mexican war.

Not sure that dictator or no dictator has much to do with the idea that military aggression must never be rewarded with territorial gains. Indeed, one could argue that dictators come and go but mass popular support for military expansion is potentially even more dangerous. So, whether or not the aggressor is dictatorial or not, seems not too relevant.

You could argue, as you seem to do, that the US was not a dictatorship at the time of the Mexican-American War. On the other hand, one could rightly ask the question, according to whom? Certainly, slaves and women could often consider the US government as dictatorial, and they did.

 

[OldGoldBeard]

Ah, yes, the lessons of history! Before you give yourself an "A", however, you should know what most serious sophomore students of history should have already learned: what history teaches us depends on the events chosen and the ideology that possesses you. (It also helps to know a little bit about the background of the events you choose to learn from.)

The event you invoke is the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine and argue - employing sarcasm - that based on the lessons of history one cannot cede territory to the aggressor because otherwise, presumably, his appetite will only be vetted and he will continue his aggression, and he will further encroach on your territory in the future.

(As an aside, the results of the Russia-Ukraine war are not yet knowable, and neither are its lessons.)

But in any event, let's take a look at a couple of other examples, and test your thesis.

How about the War of the Austrian Succession? It was started by Prussia, the aggressor, attacking and seizing Silesia, which was a part of the Austrian Empire. The war ended with Austria ceding Silesia to Prussia. Aggression rewarded? Right? A no-no under your argument because it will only whet the appetite of the Prussian aggressor to keep encroaching on Austria's territory. Actually, the next war, the Seven Years' War was initiated by Austria in an effort to recover Silesia. Austria failed. Nevertheless, within a few years Austria and Prussia, along with Russia, were partners in the partitions of Poland and after that, they were allies in the wars against Napoleon. Your lesson fails if we consider these events.

Let's consider the example of the Mexican-American War. The US aggressor ended up with huge chunks of Mexican territory, almost the size of the Louisiana Purchase. Under your thesis, one would think that the US has ever since been encroaching on and militarily seizing territory from Mexico. Hey, the southern border of the US must be south of Mexico City by now! Wrong. Once again your lesson does not work very well.

Under your lesson of history, one might conclude that if you do confront and stop an aggressor and deny him any territorial acquisitions, his taste for aggression will be blunted, and he will no longer threaten his neighbors. OK, let's have a look at World War I. In this conflict, the German aggressor was soundly defeated, its entire system of autocratic government overthrown, and replaced with a liberal democratic one. Germany was even stripped of considerable territories, its armed forces were practically eliminated, and the country had to agree to pay for the war. Well, I guess that solved the problem. Military aggression was confronted, defeated, and punished. No more danger of Germany attacking its neighbors. Right? Never mind World War II. Actually, your thesis leads to erroneous conclusions once again.

As I noted in the post to which you objected, Russia's aggressive designs toward the West have already been blunted by its inability to take Ukraine. It is time for peace. And part of the price for that peace will have to be that Russian majority territories, which were never traditionally a part of Ukraine anyway, will be ceded by Ukraine to Russia. You do believe in self-determination, don't you?

Self-determination by the population as it stood before or after filling a few mass graves and abducting 700,000 children?

Not sure that dictator or no dictator has much to do with the idea that military aggression must never be rewarded with territorial gains. Indeed, one could argue that dictators come and go but mass popular support for military expansion is potentially even more dangerous. So, whether or not the aggressor is dictatorial or not, seems not too relevant.

You could argue, as you seem to do, that the US was not a dictatorship at the time of the Mexican-American War. On the other hand, one could rightly ask the question, according to whom? Certainly, slaves and women could often consider the US government as dictatorial, and they did.

I reject your liberal revisionist anti-American interpretation.

 

[birdman]

Not sure that dictator or no dictator has much to do with the idea that military aggression must never be rewarded with territorial gains. Indeed, one could argue that dictators come and go but mass popular support for military expansion is potentially even more dangerous. So, whether or not the aggressor is dictatorial or not, seems not too relevant.

You could argue, as you seem to do, that the US was not a dictatorship at the time of the Mexican-American War. On the other hand, one could rightly ask the question, according to whom? Certainly, slaves and women could often consider the US government as dictatorial, and they did.

The entire premise of the post you were responding to was ‘Appeasing dictators doesn’t work.’ So, try again.