Before this is over American taxpayers will have sent 100 billion in printed money and our critical weapons supplies will have been depleted. I’d like to know what we get out of this. OK, we help the Ukrainian people defend themselves, all good. And if we were rolling in cash I’d be cheering. But we are in a recession, we are sufferi…
Before this is over American taxpayers will have sent 100 billion in printed money and our critical weapons supplies will have been depleted. I’d like to know what we get out of this. OK, we help the Ukrainian people defend themselves, all good. And if we were rolling in cash I’d be cheering. But we are in a recession, we are suffering from inflation from too much printed money. Our savings are evaporating before our eyes. Our people need help.
The best that can be hoped for is a withdrawal of Russian forces. But Putin’s ego and his vision of Russia are on the line. He’s a wounded animal now. He’s not going to surrender. So what then?
It is in our national interest and a national priority to prevent Putin from expanding Russian influence and control over former Eastern Bloc nations and rebuilding a threatening Soviet empire at the expense of free Europe. The political experiment in appeasement that allowed Hitler to annex Austria and invade Czechoslovakia and Poland and led directly to World War Two in Europe should be a cautionary tale. Putin has repeatedly stated that the biggest mistake in Russia's history was allowing the break-up of the Soviet Union. His ambition is to restore hegemony over Eastern Europe and to weaken NATO and US influence in the West. The
US does not have the luxury of isolation anymore, either economically or militarily. The money spent in defending the Ukraine is well spent and much preferred to sending our troops to defend Europe against Putin's aggression.
A nuclear attack on Western Europe and.perhaps the United States, after he evacuated his leadership to underground shelters in the Urals,, just as the Soviets would nave done.
Maureen, your comment ignores the steps that entangled the U.S. and then NATO in Ukraine in the first place. It was hardly a plot from the left but the persistence of neocons, most of them Republicans, who ignored our pledge at the end of the cold war and the advice of our most informed advisors, like George Kennan, not to extend NATO eastward.
Much of that effort was undertaken to advance the interests of American corporations. Neocon Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland and the late Senator John McCain called for the overthrow of a legally-elected albeit corrupt President of Ukraine in 2014, meeting with neo-Nazis among others, and passing out sandwiches to the Maidan rebels. Shortly thereafter, American Big Ag companies moved in to snatch up rich Ukrainian farm land, fossil fuel companies looked to the oil wells in the Donbas and the chance to sell LNG in Ukraine once the Russian gas was shut off. Big finance profited from the loans that were extended to prop up the government and the MIC began selling weapons to the expanded NATO members.
If you'd bother to look, you'd find that what remains of the left in this country (not the corporate Democratic Party) has been opposed to our policies in Ukraine for years. Take a look at Tom Dispatch, Consortium News, or Google up Chris Hedges' articles and interviews. We're waging a proxy war in hopes of weakening Putin and Russia and advancing the interests of American corporations. The war was entirely avoidable had we abided by our agreements at the end of the Cold War of the Minsk agreements of 2014.
"Much of that effort was undertaken to advance the interests of American corporations."
Almost everything--everything--this nation does or does not do is in service to Big Corporate. As two-time Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler correctly noted nearly a century ago:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Yes, I’ve heard this argument. Always America’s fault. No other country involves itself in the politics of other nations, right?
Ukraine is an independent country now and if its people want to join NATO, I don’t blame them.
Of course Putin is threated by NATO at its doorstep. But NATO is a defensive organization. Why should he fear it? It’s his pride and ambition to restore a Russian empire that drives the attack.
America is not unique in this. Every nation on Earth involves itself in other people's politics and spies on their friends, neighbors, and neutrals, hoping to gain an edge for power, profit, and politics. We spy on Israel, Israel spies on us, we spy on England, England spies on France, which spies on Australia, which spies on China, which interferes with . . .
Always was, always will be.
I agree with you. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and if it wishes to join NATO, the EU, or the Barnum and Bailey Circus, it has every right to do so. Putin has no right to invade and conquer, and Ukraine is correctly repelling him and his unhappy troops.
Quite right about Ukrainian sovereignty, Shane, but it was silly and provocative for it to make EU and NATO membership a constitutional goal after the Maidan revolt. Ukraine has long been rated one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It does not now and won't for a long time meet the standards for EU or NATO membership. Putin's invasion was unjustified and should be repelled. But the long chain of events that led to the invasion could have been handled differently without compromising American security unless "security" is defined as advancing American corporate interests as it so often has been in the past.
Agreed, particularly with your last sentence . . . advancing the interests of Big Corporate takes precedence over almost every thing else this nation does.
$100bn is a small price to pay unless we're willing to be rich but without influence, like say Japan.
The era of unchallenged US supremacy is over. (I'd say the change began when China joined the WTO). Our GDP is 20 $trillion, China's is closing in, already at $12t. Given our population we're unlikely to hang on to the #1 GDP spot. So we need to help allies and challenge competitors when needed - If we don't put up then we're giving up.
This war could have ended much earlier as Putin wanted to negotiate. Boris Johnson's wife Carrie Johnson persuaded Boris to send missiles and artillery to Ukraine so that was the end of peace and Boris. Goodbye Boris.
Russia's ties to Crimea go back centuries, and when we supported the Maidan revolt to install a pro-western administration, planning the revolt during the Sochi Olympics while Putin was on his best behavior, Putin's reaction was entirely predictable, if deplorable. But Ukraine's claim to Crimea is circumstantial at best. It was assigned to Ukraine by Khrushchev in the mid 1950s for administrative purposes. The population of Crimea is 60% Russian, Stalin having "relocated" the Tartars decades earlier. It was never part of Ukraine prior to the administrative assignment within the USSR.
Yes, Russia agreed to recognize Ukraine's borders at the end of the cold war if Ukraine gave up its nukes. But it's factually wrong to assert that Crimea had long, close ties to Ukraine. Russian troops were stationed throughout Crimea prior to the "invasion" to ensure Russian access to its vital seaport in Sebastopol, a Russian possession since Peter the Great.
The events of 2014 -- the Maidan revolt and the Russian annexation of Crimea and fighting in Donbas were "settled" by the Minsk agreements, signed in September of that year. This agreement called for a cease fire, prisoner exchanges, and reform of the Ukrainian constitution, eliminating its aspirations for NATO membership, and granting a degree of autonomy to parts of the Donbas -- areas with large ethnic Russian populations that had suffered abuse and discrimination from right wing elements of the Ukrainian government. While both sides violated elements of the agreement, it was Ukraine, not Russia, that formally disavowed the treaty in 2018. The U.S. could have done more to pressure Ukraine toward a full implementation of the agreement. We didn't, Ukraine formally ended the agreement, and the road to a wider conflict was opened. That doesn't justify or excuse the subsequent Russian invasion or the wanton attacks on civilians, the torture, abuse, and killing of combatants, or other war crimes. I do believe, however, that this war was avoidable. We chose not to pursue such options.
This is a very sensible view, Richard, and I agree with virtually all of it. I would have preferred, as I'm sure you did, that Ukraine and Russia had quietly negotiated a new border that would "move" the Russian population centers of Donbas formally into Russia, create a land bridge through eastern Crimea to protect the port, and otherwise settle their differences peacefully. They could have announced this border move jointly along with trade agreements that benefitted both, told the Donbas people to move to whichever side of the border suited them best, paid for the relocations, and called it a day.
Some people seem to believe that the 100 billion the US might end by spending to help Ukraine fend off the Russian invasion is some kind of charity, while Putin’s Russia poses no existential threat to the US. This is totally short-sighted, as Ukraine is just the first bite that the Russian and Chinese empires would want. As to the money, it’s pretty mean to whine about 100 billions against tens of thousands of destroyed lives, after Trump and Biden together have wasted more than 5 trillion dollars in the last few years. It’s also outright absurd to imagine that we don’t help the Ukrainians, the money saved will fix the problems in the US. Exactly how many problems have the last 5 trillions spent in the US solved? I mean, other than causing rampant inflation ?
There are far worse ways to spend my tax money than helping stop Czar Putin from eating and digesting a free and sovereign Ukraine. Many of our wars, from Iraq to the mighty liberation of ... um, Grenada . . . were stupid and pointless. This is not. Particularly when Ukraine is so rich in natural resources we might need to purchase down the road to keep out economy going, and now we will be first in line at the counter.
The national ills you correctly list are independent of any help we give Ukraine.
Good points, Shane, although I will say that Grenadians LOVE America and Americans for saving their country from the Cubans. The invasion also saved many African lives that those who know this history will quickly agree with. You hear it constantly when you're there.
Really? Our invasion had that big an impact on real people? That's fascinating, Sea Sentry, thanks for letting me know. I'm delighted that what for Reagan was only a political stunt turned out to be good for actual lives. The things we learn in Bariland ...
I know. I was shocked the first time I went there as well. There's a museum dedicated to the U.S. expulsion of the Cubans, and Reagan's name is spoken of with reverence. People come up to you and say "thank you". Not your typical overseas experience if you're an American.
History has repeatedly taught us that if you don't dissuade such aggression, it continues and often results in a much wider war that would plunge the entire world into recession, including the U.S. And a wider war is much more expensive as we all know. Our problems here in the U.S. are due to the gross mismanagement of our economy by our elected officials over many years. We are spending trillions on entitlements that enable inactivity and bad habits, and on programs that don't work but line the pockets of the well-connected. We have an open border and incoherent public health policy. Not defending Ukraine won't solve our problems here - we have to do that. They are not connected.
You must have a very long nose. What America will get out of this is obvious - an end to Russian imperialism without putting one American boot on the ground.
Russians have no will to fight in Ukraine whereas Ukrainians are fighting for the survival of their nation. A Ukrainian victory is inevitable and would already have occurred if America’s cognitively impaired President had supplied weapons earlier.
You are as illogical as Jordan Peterson and as uncaring as Tucker Carlson, who has at least admitted that he was wrong. You are still clueless.
Just like we were going to stop the spread of communism by fighting a war in Vietnam? Did that not start "without putting one American boot on the ground?" What happens when this escalates to requiring boots on the ground? Will you then decide it's not worth fighting or funding? There is not a single mention of trying to negotiate some kind of resolution. The only thing our government talks about is more war. Do you really expect the Ukraine to win this without requiring actual personnel? To say a Ukrainian victory is inevitable and would have occurred sooner with more weapons makes you sound like you work for the CIA or Northrop Grumman. Please provide an example of when we've ever been successful winning a conflict by doing nothing besides supply weapons and "aid.". At some point it requires aircraft and/or personnel. Once we provide either, it's a full blown war.
Russian imperialism doesn't affect me, my community, or this country, and I see no reason to believe that a loss in Ukraine will end Russian imperialism. We're hurting ourselves more by fighting them than we would by allowing their expansion.
Please tone down the hate and the personal attacks, especially when your comment is mostly just imagination, speculation, and insults.
Jordan might be the most intelligent and compassionate person I've seen in the modern world. An extremely rare celebrity who sincerely has no concern for money or power. Incredible person and my role model.
That's certainly a part of it but even before that you can see how his lectures got enormous amounts of views. I think more than anything he has risen to prominence because so many people have been moved and helped through his insights.
This is really the cost of doing business with a brutal dictator as if he were a rational member of the world community. Germany is particularly at fault. Europe was especially stupid about their anti-energy agenda.
What is it worth to get rid of Putin? Probably more that $100 billion, especially if it deters China from its belligerent ambitions.
Stop allowing MIC sycophants to manipulate you with their constant threats of “if we don’t do this or that CHINA’S GOING TO INVADE TAIWAN.” Taiwan is a heavily armed island with fewer than 15 beaches that would allow for an amphibious invasion, all of which are bordered by cliffs. China would need to deploy *at least* 1.5 million troops if they had any hopes of being successful against Taiwans 450,000 man military and that number is likely way too low. Then there’s the whole problem of transporting 1.5 million troops over 100 miles to invade- that would require something like 1500 war ships and thousands more vessels- China currently has 355 ships and submarines total. And again, these are all lowball estimates.
Troop carriers crossing the Strait would be very vulnerable to air strikes, and Taiwan does have around 300 combat aircraft including over 100 of their own indigenous fighter-bombers. They also have a lot of missiles.
Obviously China has numerical superiority in every category, but any such adventure would be very expensive for them... and is not guaranteed to succeed. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is a highly advanced democratic state with some of the most advanced industries in the world. They are an important asset to the U.S. and Japan, both of which countries have warned China against an incursion.
Should they just go ahead and invade, we'd be forced to sanction China at every level. Apple would be skrewed given their most profitable devices are all assembled there. Which is why they're opening factories in SE Asia and the U.S. currently (Arizona, Texas).
But China would be royally skrewed. Their manufacturers and exporters would lose 25-30% of their business and this would likely tip their already-shaky economy into recession. Their real estate bubble which is already starting to pop would burst more quickly, probably hundreds of millions of people would lose their assets and savings, and you would start to see open questioning of Beijing's policies, if not an uprising which is virtually impossible given the size of domestic military. They're very good at shooting unarmed college students, anyway.
EDIT: I would also note that people including even some liberals would demand the U.S. defend Taiwan. If we're willing to do so much for a corrupt, backward shit hole like Ukraine, why wouldn't we help a fellow democracy that is very pro-American despite lack of diplo relations? It would spark a debate perhaps but in the end the U.S. would be forced to do the right thing, and China's economy would likely tank as a result. So might ours, but unlike them, we can re-source products to other manufacturing regions like SE Asia, Mexico, and our own homeland where manufacturing is actually undergoing a renaissance.
Uh, China doesn't need to invade us. They just cut off our supplies. You really don't understand the position our so-called leaders and captains of industry have left us in, do you? And all China has to do to Taiwan is surround them and cut off their supplies. They'll starve to death. And given that China is obviously not afraid to kill their own people . . . I'd say you're the one being manipulated. This is not a fight we want. Regular American people will suffer and the nation would not survive it. We are absolutely nothing close to the power we used to be.
1. I’m not interested in fighting any wars with anyone, that includes China and/or Russia.
2. Taiwan has a 28 month supply of rice and 12 months supply of fruits/veggies for its population in the case of a Chinese blockade. They also have large domestic pork production and aquaponic farms.
3. China is significantly more vulnerable to a food blockade. I assure you, this won’t be the route they take.
4. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t *need* 95% of the shit we import from China. We are vulnerable with respect to pharmaceutical production, I’ll grant you that. Otherwise, they can keep their plastic toys and solar panels. We’ll be okay.
5. I highly suggest you do real research instead of just regurgitating Warhawk talking points w/ regards to China and the leverage/power they hold over us. China is vital to convenience, not survival.
(1) Me either, which is why I don't like them kicking the tail of the dragon.
(2) So after two years, what happens? And they import more than food, such as medicine and fuel. Taiwan is an *island*. Trust me, the Chinese can wait them out.
(3) Not if they're friendly with Russia, most of South America, and the rest of Asia. You're making a *huge* assumption that put to the test, the rest of the world would side with us in a blockade because they like their cheap China shit too.
(4) Yes, but that 5% includes rare earth metals, antibiotics and other medicines, all those lovely little solar panels they keep insisting we install, wind turbines, the parts for semiconductors and microchips . . . do I really need to go on?
(5) I am far from a warhawk. We *cannot* and I repeat *cannot* win this fight, so picking it is suicidal. We're straining ourselves in a freaking proxy war with Russia in Ukraine *just* providing materiel. There is literally no way for us, in our current state, to even survive a cold war with China much less a hot one.
I agree that putting ourselves in a position to be dependent on solar panels (or wind turbines for that matter) is the dumbest thing we could possibly do lest we enter a Cold War with China but I totally disagree that our stupid support of Ukraine is leaving us vulnerable in terms of military equipment/power. Our DOD is literally dumping the shit we don’t want/need on Ukraine. That’s part of the grift. Unload the old stuff so the DOD has an excuse to contract for the new. And China doesn’t possess those rare earth minerals, most of which are located in Africa: they control the mining. Good luck holding onto those mining/production lines when their entire Navy is engaged in a full blown food embargo on Taiwan.
As big and powerful as China is, it’s not *that* big and powerful. I’m not saying we should be picking fights but Im sure as shit not interested in total appeasement of that a-hole Xi just bc he might make my life a little less cushy.
Go look up the Belt and Road Initiative. It doesn't matter that those rare earth metals are in Africa (though China has them as well). China has been positioning itself to control them. And if you didn't want to appease Xi, depending on how old you are, you should have been kicking up a fuss when Clinton and Bush invited China into the WHO and made gave China most favored nation trading status, and then when we allowed all our companies to move their manufacturing over there or to source necessary parts of their products over there.
You need to take some time to read Chinese history. They once controlled their known world by establishing client states. They're doing it again.
Lillia is right about our naval power. There is no way our decaying Navy can protect Taiwan, just off the coast of mainland China, any more than China could invade Catalina island. We simply can't project power that far against a peer or near-peer military power.
Yes, but to paraphrase from former Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen, Argentina is no China. Japan is certainly an X factor as you say, and I'm sure there's a lot of discussion in Japan about what their role might be that I'm not privy to.
Are you a Navy guy? My understanding is, the U.S. Navy is still vastly more powerful than China's, but they now have numerical superiority, which is "not nothing" according to a top admiral.
In a conventional war, the U.S. would mop the ocean floor with China's navy, and could probably decimate their land forces with some precision bombing raids and a massive barrage of Tomahawks.
If it escalated to nuclear, both countries would lose, but China would lose 10x the people we would, largely because their pop. is concentrated along the coasts whereas we are more sparsely distributed in a similar size land mass. (Now if they took out SF, Chicago, and DC, the evil side of me questions whether that would actually be so bad.)
I'm not a Navy guy, but I can swim if that helps. I think head to head in a swimming pool, the U.S. would still prevail. The problem is projecting power that far - think resupplying munitions, fuel, logistics, and rotating sailors. Remember that we don't have Subic Bay and Clark AFB any longer. Guam could be incapacitated and Japan may or may not be willing to be dragged into a war by being our only source of near supply, other than possibly Australia. And don't think the PRC won't have a significant 5th column in Taiwan. The scene on the ground there may not so much represent a defense as a chaotic civil war. Our fleet is declining and in disrepair as recent accidents show, though maybe CRT and equity training will tip the scales in our favor. China won't resort to nukes because they know time is on their side. Taiwan will have to defend itself the way Ukraine has if it wants to remain independent and free.
Nope very few Communist sympathizers in Taiwan. Up until the 1980s such people were shot dead. Maybe a couple thousand, including some visitors or illegal immigrants from the mainland. But not a significant population in an island of 23 million.
You're thinking way smaller than China is. And they don't need to fight us. Do you actually realize how many of our basics are made in China? All rhey need to do is just stop shipping us things like antibiotics. So no our "superior naval power" will not save Taiwan or us.
So how well did those sanctions against Russia work? Oh, that's right. Their ruble is doing just fine. Meanwhile, Germany's economy is on the verge of collapse, the US dollar is losing its status as the world currency, and our inflation is nearing 10%. Maybe you want to rethink what you *know* about how powerful the US is economically.
She was talking about China refusing to sell us their manufactured goods. China would be the one imposing sanctions on us. We would find a way around that, just like Russia has found a way around the boycotts.
I envy you your rosy vision of the US as it currently is. We are not the country we were before WWII. That country could survive this. This country cannot.
Actually, interestingly, though of course I'm outspokenly opposed to globalism and to this stupid war in Ukraine or at least to our helping Ukraine militarily... the dollar is very strong right now. It's virtually at parity with the British pound (which used to be worth $1.80), ditto with the Euro which used to be worth $1.25 or so and as of today (Monday) is worth $0.96. That's huge.
Some good points, but the Dollar is not losing its status as the world currency, at least not yet. It has risen dramatically during the conflict because everyone knows we can defend ourselves. Germany's economy is collapsing due to Angela Merkel's disastrous energiewende policy.
China has twice the size of our Navy and is building the equivalent of the British Royal Navy every year. They will surround each of our carrier groups with massive numbers of their own battleships and then say "I dare you!"
China doesn't have even a single operational aircraft carrier. The numbers don't matter as much as their capabilities. When was the last time China's navy won a battle?
And what does that have to do with our support of Ukraine? The numbers didn't matter much in Ukraine.
After seeing what is happening to Russia in Ukraine China's military leaders may be thinking twice about attacking Taiwan with a navy that has never been battle tested. They don't want their first battle to be against the US Navy.
No, China does have aircraft carriers now. Look up the Shandong and the Fujian. Not sure if they're totally operational yet, though. Give them a year or two and they will be.
In addition, they have several retired Soviet carriers such as the Minsk, to study. Not sure why the Russians thought it was a great idea to give this tech to China, but I guess they needed the cash.
I don't disagree. China has had no wartime experience since their border skirmish with Vietnam back in 1979. During two weeks of fighting, China lost around 7,000 troops, plus another 10,000 wounded (estimates based on various sources, see wikipedia). A very expensive campaign.
When they entered Korea in 1950, it cost them an estimated 400,000 soldiers (the US lost a total of 52,000).
They seem willing to just sacrifice as many people as possible to advance their goals. The thing is, today's China is not the same as 1950 China. It's a nation of "one-child" families, and people in their 20s are not all that willing to self-sacrifice; they don't even want to raise children which is causing a massive population implosion. So, we'll see.
Nobody is. The US is the only country in the world with enough transportation capabilities to project real power across the globe. The two oceans at our coasts are effectively our main defense.
"attack" comes in many forms. some rob you with a six gun. some with a fountain pen.. Michael; Shellenberger says it best. China makes almost 100% of our "green energy" ( solar panels and wind machine parts). most of our medicines.. and well just about everything.. cheap labor has its risks
They don't have to. All they have to do is cut off our supply chain. And then they'll attack us. Our reliance on China has been a disaster in the making since Clinton and Bush brought them into the global trade network.
Granted, no crystal ball. But we're not gonna be invaded by China.
Taiwan may be another story, and You may be right we won't have the arms to prevent it. ICBW, but I'm still of the opinion that if China really, REALLY wants Taiwan, they'll get it in the end.
One thing, as has been "said" elsewhere, China is watching all this. Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine was. So this may delay the (inevitable?) attack.
Taiwan will have to really up its game to make the cost of an invasion too high for China. Biden's remarks (we will defend China) don't encourage them to make those investments.
Japan won't stand for an invasion of Taiwan, nor will the U.S., regardless the utterings of the senile dementia leadership and his handlers.
For its part, Taiwan would fight hard. Although, their military is not as prepared as it was 40 years ago, when the World War Two generation was still in charge. But they still have universal draft, advanced weaponry, and 70 years to prepare for invasion. They also have PhD scientists and nuclear reactors and as far back as the 1980s, it was rumored they have nuclear bombs in pieces, waiting to be assembled in time of national emergency. Even if not true, such rumors have a deterrent effect.
But if the Communists do move on Taiwan, it would likely escalate quickly into a regional war and, eventually, World War Three. Trump was pretty resolute on this topic; he literally told Xi he would bomb Beijing if they invaded Taiwan. Biden, who knows what if anything is in his brain at this point. God help us.
Like most-a the MAGA crowd, it all comes down to Trump and Biden.
I can't recall who I just read that said that it was the *NAVAL* arena that would make the difference. That the U.S. would need a strong *NAVY.* I dunno that it has one, ever since China developed the hypersonic missal.
ICBW, but I think that if China puts 1.4 BILLION people to the problem, they just may succeed. You think the U.S. and Japan can actually win a war against them? I ask what that's based on?
See if You can leave Trump outta it. I doubt it, but thought I'd ask.
If Trump were president today, Ukraine would not have been invaded, and China would not be threatening Taiwan.
Why? Because Trump would say "If you invade Taiwan, I'll halt all trade". Obviously that didn't stop the Russians, but it sure would screw China. And China is Russia's financial backer.
Yeah. And that allows You to see what *would-a* happened? Answer (so You don't hafta look it up): Nup. Dream on, because that's the only way You can look into Your crystal ball.
No, we could not win a war against China. They have something far more important than weapons or people. They have the foundation of our supply chain. If Trump got one thing right, it was even in a flimsy way trying to move some production back here. (I didn't have to mention Trump, but I just wanted to needle you.)
Sometimes the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.
Sometimes our enemy is only "our enemy" because we decreed it so. That seems to particularly be true of Russia. Some Americans have never accepted that the Cold War ended.
*Russia* decreed it was our enemy. All that crap about the Orange Revolution may be true, I dunno. But that's a pretty lame excuse for Russia invading Ukraine now, AFAIK.
A handful? Are you a Nazi? You win the prize for stupidest comment yet. 6 million dead Jews is not a handful and the war began after Czechoslovakia, Poland and France were invaded.
We started a 20 year war across multiple countries over 5000 people of our own citizens dying. All of the same people that started/kept us in a war for 20 years are now telling you Russia is just supposed to sit back and watch his people get slain so NATO can expand their footprint. That’s absolute insanity.
Ukraine stopped being an independent nation when they went along with the coup in 2014.
Maureen, if you do not understand the price of appeasement of vicious dictators, I suggest you take some time and view the Kien Burns series on the Holocaust. Europe appeased Hitler on 1938, for reasons similar to your arguments here. Six years later, 50 million people were dead, 6 million of my people among them. You also might want to view the photographs and video of towns liberated from Russian occupation: thousands of cilivians with their hands tied and a bullet to their heads.
Sorry about your tax burden, Maureen. But Europeans would trade places with you any time.
Germans invaded Russia and slaughtered everyone in their invasion path - a little info you missed in your demonization of the Russians in the war. (NOT justifying ANY of the horrors committed). However Russia lost 25 million people so we could claim victory
Maybe you should take a look at how the Ukrainians are targeting and killing Russian speaking Ukrainians using very similar German tactics of marking those families houses with a sign, for the special units to come clean out. Don’t moralize
WW II is irrelevant to this discussion. Why not talk about when the Swedes, the Lithuanians and the Poles all invaded Ukraine centuries ago? Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and cases of torture and murder of civilians are coming forth in large numbers. Your defense of Russian (really Putin’s) behavior is really weak. Russia is the largest country in the world, perhaps the most endowed with natural resources, brilliant people - it should be a light for the world in every way. Instead, it is cursed by a long history of terrible leaders, murderers and thieves, of which Putin is just one more. Sad, yes. Defensible, nyet.
I'm not sure how you can say that. We're being drawn into this war with the justification that this exactly like WWII, only Putin is Hitler and Russia is Germany. You hear that ad nauseam. Otherwise, what is the point of defending one tiny random corrupt country from another larger corrupt country?
Are you suggesting we should not have engaged in WW II against Germany because it was one random country against another (well, several countries in that case) and didn't touch our shores? Should we not have challenged Japan in WW II as they took over Southeast Asia and with eyes on Australia and New Zealand?
The world is a tough place, whether we like it or not. The point of defending "one tiny random corrupt country" (like the U.S. is not corrupt!) against another, Russia, which has invaded and ruled many of its neighbors over the last century, is so a regional war does not become a global war.
I just got back from the Baltic states. You see Ukranian flags everywhere. They know and will freely tell you that if the Ukrainians can't stop the Russians, they know they will be next.
I am suggesting that *everyone* draws World War II into the discussion to defend our so-called intervention (which is more accurately termed "interference") into Ukraine, so you can't suggest it is *not* relevant if someone reminds you of the Russian experience during World War II. It's a matter of consistency.
It sounds like you're looking for some kind of moral equivalence: it happened to the Russians when Germany invaded 70 years ago so they have a right to act out today. Is that it?
You've completely neglected what Russia has consistently done to its neighbors over the last century, including the Holodomor when they starved 4m Ukranians because the communist experiment in agriculture under Stalin was an abject failure. Exactly what do you propose, Lillia? Should we consign Europe over to Putin? I sense you don't like war, with which I agree, but what would you do? Wringing your hands is not a coherent strategy.
You obviously didn't read the articles. *Every war*--and I mean *every war*--since World War II has been in full or part justified because (or sold to the American people with the accusation that) "we didn't intervene soon enough" in World War II. And if we don't "intervene," it will become *Just Like* World War II. X will plow across Y, killing all these innocent people in his path.
Every war, every single stinking one, no matter what other rationale there was. Wether we were fighting to stop "commies" or fighting to stop "terrorists." Whether we were directly involved or fighting a "proxy" war. Every single one.
You know the one thing they have all had in common? They were clusterf--ks. We sacrificed lives and money and found ourselves in a quagmire ending up worse off by every metric than when we started with the world just a touch less stable for our machinations.
Explain to me, using small words, why I shouldn't believe that pattern will hold.
The other reason I know you didn't read the articles is you didn't contradict that our entry into World War II may have hastened the demise of the Jews in the concentration camps. In other words, the Jews were Hitler's hostages, perhaps not well treated, but living. Only after we got in the war did "extermination" and "liquidation" become his theme. It's the law of unintended consequences. And it's ironclad. It's not that I don't think World War II might be the one war that was worth getting into. I just think this one is nothing remotely like World War II and we need to stay the hell out.
Yes, war is hell. What would the alternative have been? Peace and love? Left to their own devices, the Soviets murdered some 40 million of their own citizens. And no, we didn't intervene. Mao is estimated to have killed/starved a similar number. And no, we didn't intervene. In both cases we really couldn't, and they were internal disasters to those countries. But when you cross borders and subjugate free people, the game changes. You haven't answered my question: what would YOU do? You're still wringing your hands, but people in positions of responsibility have to act. How bizarre of you to suggest that the U.S. triggered the killing of the Jews in Hitler's concentration camps because we finally intervened to support Great Britain and Europe more broadly. You should travel abroad or at least talk to people who have lived under difficult regimes. It will help you appreciate how horrible people can be, and that some things are worth fighting for.
Putin's not a dictator, no matter how much the West screams that he is. We might not like the electoral system in Russia (although the US played a big part in creating it) but Putin is still subject to it and can be voted out if he gets unpopular.
As for appeasement of vicious dictators - you know the US was funding Europe and Germany during WW2 right? You know they took hundreds of Nazi scientists and gave them a home in the US federal organizations? You know the US has a long history of turning a blind eye to the human rights violations of various leaders of various countries as long as it is in their interest, right? Take Saddam, who was funded to fight the Iranians in 80s because they had the poor taste to overthrow the dictator the US / UK installed on them. Didn't seem to have much of a problem with him then did we? Or Saudi, which has a significantly worse human rights record than Russia. Currently we're enabling them to commit genocide in Yemen.
As for this conflict between Russia Ukraine, I don't trust anything coming out the MSM, Russia or Ukraine. They're all lying. My question is, what does it have to do with us? Don't start with your moralizing, as we have no morals. What is our interest in prolonging this conflict? How does it benefit us? Do we want Europe to bankrupt and deindustrialize itself? And a strong Russia / China marriage?
Thank you, everything you said are truths no one wants to acknowledge, including what's coming out of the MSM (and Common Sense, which is so often MSM adjacent).
Running against Putin in an election is a great way to get poisoned. Putin is a dictator as much as Kim Jong Un is (North Korea also has elections after all).
The US interest is in Russia finding it very, very difficult to conquer territory to their west. If conquest is easy for Putin, he's just going to keep doing it.
The difference is no boots on the ground in Ukraine. If anything this is more like arming the Taliban when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, except hopefully Zelenskyy isn't the next Osama Bin Laden.
Our involvement in Vietnam started with no boots on the ground. Most conflicts start with no boots on the ground and then escalate. If Biden and/or NATO decides to move troops into Ukraine, would your position change? There is zero talk of trying to deescalate this conflict. The only option presented by our media is supplying more weapons and more money to Ukraine.
Our involvement in Afghanistan also started with no boots on the ground. Granted, 9/11 likely changed the plan for Afghanistan but most did not see us being there for 20+ years at a cost of trillions of dollars.
Navalny alternates between exile and being thrown in prison; he's treated by the Kremlin the way the CCP treats the Dalai Lama.
Putin started with Chechnya, then Georgia, then Crimea, and now hes come for the rest of Ukraine. The signs have been there all along.
The US cares because 1) Sooner or later Russian expansion will run into American allied states (e.g. Finland), and because 2) EU countries are much better for the US economy than Russian-style countries (with no rules against IP theft and massive state-sponsored hacking farms, for example). So the US has a vested interest in not seeing Putin roll tanks through half of Europe in his dream of rebuilding the Iron Curtain.
Better to nip conquest in the bud than let it snowball, as we saw with Germany in the 1930s.
No, most Europeans do not want to emulate our levels of crime, poverty, disfunction and poor public education. By the way, lower income earners in most European countries, especially Scandinavia, pay much more tax than our low earners do.
You think that only because the media tells you they are. I haven't heard many rumblings lately. And Belarus and Georgia aren't, and along with Ukraine, they are the ones that matter.
The Baltic states begged to join and it worked, Finland and Sweden both want in; it's too late for Georgia as they already got conquered in 2008, and Belarus is content being a vassal state controlled by the Kremlin.
Ukraine used to be controlled by a Kremlin puppet government, but the post-2014 government is much more into asserting their independence, which is why Putin invaded Crimea. Ever since then, Ukraine has wanted to join NATO because they knew it was a matter of when, not if, Putin came for Kiev.
Putin is not Hitler. This is not the pre-World War II. This is a fight over Ukraine joining NATO so the US is right on Russia's border, simple as that. Our leaders caused this problem and now they're feeding the beast at our expense by waging a proxy war. And it does us no good to sink our economy and leave ourselves vulnerable trying to save one corrupt regime from another.
I would say not as long as they remain neutral, but it depends on how much Europe crumbles this winter with a shortage of natural gas and our economy crumbles because it can't stand the strain of even a proxy war. If Putin thinks he could pull it off, and Finland has already made noises about joining NATO, or so the media says, who knows. That was always the risk of cajoling Zelensky into not settling with Russia. If Russia sees that it has a chance at more with little risk, why not? Same thing with China and Taiwan and the Middle East and Israel. If they decide the US wolf is just a chihuahua in throwing shadows on the wall, then really there's nothing in their way.
All the more reason to make the Ukraine invasion as painful as possible for Russia; so that they don't come to see invading neighbours as a "low risk" venture.
Well, as you can tell, it's also very painful for us. The price of oil is killing our economy and Germany's economy is teetering, and where it goes, the rest of the world soon follows. We raised rates to drive down inflation, but we'll have to lower rates when the recession deepens into depression, which will once again feed inflation. Hunger pangs tend to trump the imperial ambitions of our leaders. And have you wondered what happens if Putin just decides f--k it all and hits the button? You people live in a fairy land. Again, you can't have both: Putin is so insane and so dastardly that we must involve him in a quagmire in Ukraine to "teach him a lesson" (as if the US is in any position to take the moral high ground in "lesson teaching") and Putin is not so insane and so dastardly to take the rest of the world with him by resorting to nuclear war. I wonder how your brains work. And I see you still haven't read the article, or this would be a much different conversation.
If Putin hits the button, he dies. The man is many things, but suicidal isn't one of them. He doesn't want to see Moscow turned into a smoking crater by nuclear war.
Europe is about to pay for handing their energy policy over to Greta Thunberg, but the US and Canada will be mostly insulated from that. There will be a small recession in North America but nothing severe enough to drop interest rates back down and restart inflation.
Russia is feeling more pain than the West, by far. 80,000 dead Russian soldiers and counting, and calling in the draft will hurt their economy massively. Have you seen how many Russians are fleeing the country?
Also, we didn't "involve" Putin in Ukraine. He chose to invade; we're just helping make it a quagmire instead of an easy win.
Again and again, Lillia Gajewski, you pretend to be deaf to what Putin says about Ukraine not being a real state and needed to be eliminated as such. You keep not only repeating Russian propaganda at nauseam, but you repeat only what suits your “narrative”, the endless red herring about poor Russia having to attack to fend off the big bad NATO. After seven months of unprovoked agression, you have learned nothing.
In his eyes, it's not a real state. Ukraine as been a part of Russia for as long as Russia has existed. It did not "win" its independence from Russia. It was *granted* its independence from Russia. They *voted* to leave and Russia *let* them leave because they wanted Ukraine to act as a buffer between NATO aligned Europe and them. Think of Puerto Rico suddenly deciding, nope, we want independence and then aligning with Russia and Russia putting nukes there. That's the equivalent.
Ukraine was briefly independent after WWI, snd, in fact, negotiated a peace with Germany before Russia signed Brest-Litovsk. The Baltics and Finland were the first countries to recognize the USSR - and they were among the first to be invaded less than twenty years later. Russia coordinated with Germany in a division of Poland. After WWII, somemof the baltic nations fought insurgencies for nearly a decade. If they werent in NATO now, does anyone think they woild be indepedent still? How other countries behave isnt the spur here - Russia has constant atheistic territorial ambitions. Oh yeah - they tried to take Iran after WWII, and why were the British in Afghanistan long ago? To keep Russia out.
Ukraine got its independence when the USSR collapsed, and ever since then Ukraine has been expecting Russia to eventually reinvade. As it turns out, they were right, so it makes sense they wanted NATO membership as an insurance policy.
Putin invaded Crimea before NATO membership was on the table, so you have the cause and effect backwards.
Putin isn't invading because Ukraine wants to join NATO; Ukraine wants to join NATO because of Putin.
Russia invaded Crimea e days after the start of the Maidan Revolution, a coup of an alerted president supported by the Obama administration. Lilia is right, our hands are not clean in this and we have used Ukraine's admission to NATO, and the EU, as a club.
Ukraine was an original member of the USSR a hundred years ago.
After the collapse of the USSR Ukraine declared itself neutral and had alliances with both Russia and European organizations. There is a significant portion of Ukraine that is ethnic Russian and speaks Russian; 17.8% as of 2022 so that percentage would have been higher if the Crimea were included. But Ukraine's history as Russian is much deeper than that dating to around 900 AD as part of the original Rus. So I suppose Putin is not wrong if he thinks of Ukraine as Russian.
Putin came to power in Russia late 1999. He served as President from then until 2008, was Prime Minister from 2008 until 2012, and President from.2012 until the present. If he does not see Ukraine as a legitimate country he waited a long time to do anything about it. Instead he invaded Crimea two days after a "revolution" aided by the US. He moved into Ukraine on the heels of talk about Ukraine joining NATO but also the EU. I have read that the EU connection would have been very damaging to the Russian economy which is not well-diversified.
So Russia had and has far greater interests in Ukraine than does the US nevertheless we have meddled therein since the Clinton administration. People have opined on here today about acting to ensure stable markets (a la colonislism), to engage in a proxy war to see how our weapons hold up (Military-Industrial Complex crack), and to thwart a global takeover by Putin (hysteria), among others. None of which are justified.
Lastly, all of my statements are my beliefs based on what I have read, in other words my opinion. As I am sure are yours.
Putin's grievances are small potatoes compared to what happened to Germany in the Treaty of Versailles; if appeasement didn't work then it's sure as shit not going to work now.
Yes, Putin's grievances are small, his economy is small, his military is small . . . how exactly do you expect him to take over Europe? Which is literally the whole justification for our defense of a highly corrupt and autocratic nation. You guys have to pick one: either (a) Russia is this evil superpower headed by a crazed maniac with his hand on the button of nearly 7000 nukes so we need to tread very, very carefully or (b) Russia is a decayed power that Ukraine can easily beat with a few weapons that we've supplied them but Putin is sane enough not to take that personally. You all are living in a Hollywood script where not thinking through the plot doesn't matter because you control the ending. Well, we *don't* control the ending.
“ Which is literally the whole justification for our defense of a highly corrupt and autocratic nation”
You should begin with a course or basic geography. And then basic history.
No one thinks Putin can overrun all of Europe with his conscript army.
Putin is bombing peaceful cities. Are they perfect cities ? No. Are they blameless and free of corruption ? No. But they are peaceful cities full of women and children. If NATO doesn’t stand up against this, NATO has no purpose.
Putin doesn't want West Germany, only East Germany. His aspiration is to rebuild the Iron Curtain, which would mean roughly 1/2 of Europe gets conquered by the time he's done.
Russia is a decayed power headed by a wannabe conqueror; if he can roll over Ukraine as easily as he rolled over Georgia, then it's a matter of when, not if, he goes after Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states.
If, on the other hand, he gets quagmired in Ukraine, then eventually he'll have to do what the US did in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan: declare victory and GTFO.
Also, I have been to Hokkaido. Not a Russian to be seen. Now I can't take anything you say seriously because the territories that are disputed are islands north of Hokkaido and not on mainland Japan.
Japan considers those islands part of the Hokkaido Prefecture, so referring to the disputed territory as Hokkaido is an acceptable shorthand.
Think of it like saying Honolulu is in Hawaii, vs. saying it's in "the Hawaiian Islands", since it's technically on Oahu and not on the island of Hawaii. Sure, one term is technically more precise than the other, but that's some seriously pedantic hairsplitting
If you said "Because you said Honolulu is in Hawaii now I can't take anything you say seriously", I'd have a hard time taking anything YOU say seriously. Which, come to think of it, I do. Pedant.
Nice try, but your statement was not, "some islands North and part of the prefecture of Hokkaido", which are NOT the Island of Hokkaido. Russia has had them since after WWII, but Japan signed a treaty giving up all claim to those islands, so comparing them to Crimea is idiotic. Japan was offered two of them by Russia but refused. You compare apples to oranges, which misleads people who don't know exactly what's happened there In an attempt to smear Russia further. I must have hit a nerve if you are now resorting to ad hominem. Now I am absolutely certain you are a Troll.
Every one of those publications has an agenda and are controlled by MSM. I consider not one of them reliable sources. Something independent would be acceptable
Well, according to you and this article, he's not "easily" rolling over them. So we have nothing to worry about, no?
And he's not the only one "quagmired" in Ukraine. You forgot that we are too. Isn't that funny how that happens? The US population gets poorer, the military industrial complex and the politicians it owns get richer, and all this goes on and on and on, and just when we got out of Afghanistan. Funny coincidence that.
If Ukraine had received no support, the rolling over would have gone much easier. Russia is only quagmired because of the support Ukraine has been receiving ever since Putin invaded Crimea.
The US is not quagmired in Ukraine; the US isn't losing thousands of soldiers trying to hold territory in another country. The military industrial complex is getting a nice payday, but it's chump change compared to how much a full-scale war in Eastern Europe would cost, if Putin's ambitions to remake the Iron Curtain were allowed to snowball the way Hitler's Third Reich ambitions did.
Baloney. How does that explain Putin's invasion of Chechnya? How about his invasion of Georgia? Thousands killed and tortured. 12 oligarchs have mysteriously committed suicide in the last year. People who disagree with the regime are jailed or worse.
As I said above, Ukraine isn't "sinking our economy". It has been widely reported that COVID entitlement fraud exceeded $46 billion. Think of all the other government handouts, medicaid payments for example. What do you think the aggregate annual amount of fraud is in our system here? Our problem isn't Ukraine, but our problems will grow if we don't keep Putin in his box.
But NATO is already on Russia’s border, via the Baltic states and Poland.
Putin himself explained that, under his let’s call it highly idiosyncratic history, Ukraine is not and never was a real country with any existence separate from Russia and its destiny was therefore to return to the fold. And he alone decided when and whether to invade Ukraine.
Talk about NATO etc. as justifications for invading a sovereign state is to fall for political spin and disinformation.
Funny thing is, Ukraine is the original "Rus," and could make the same claim that Rus unification necessitates that Ukraine conquer Russia in order to return its people to the natural order of things. Russia should be careful what it wishes for, it may get it in the form of Ukraine being the conqueror!
Putin's invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO policies, as you pointed out. It's about Putin's vision of him as Czar Vladimir of the United Rus, and alsso conquering a nation rich in resources that he can use, sell, and exploit.
Haver you looked at a map recently? Poland is *not* on Russia's border. And the Baltic states are ridiculously small as to be not a threat with a minuscule connecting border. Meanwhile, you can easily hit Moscow from Ukraine. In fact, Russia has been invaded most every time from that direction. You need to turn off the propagandists, like Common Sense, and go read some history and look at some maps. Russia is a well-armed has-been superpower who sees another internally decaying superpower that is well known for its "regime change as distraction wars" eying a very long stretch of land right along its border. The US itself has started wars and invaded countries over less.
Yes, but it's much easier to mess around with Russia if you're right on their border. You can also mess around in Belarus and Georgia. It's also good for getting Russia to "attack" the US/NATO so you can justify marching troops in. Don't be naive. This is all about putting the US on Russia's doorstep, and we're willing to kill a lot of Ukrainians to do it.
No it isn't. This isn't the1940s. The US doesn't want to have anything to do with Russia. The only thing the US is interested in is Russia not firing off nukes. I will say it again. The US can "mess around" with Russia from wherever it wants to. It just doesn't want to. There is no strategic interest in doing so.
Then why did we sabotage the peace deal after meddling in Ukraine's politics? We *definitely* care about Russia, and even if you can't see it, they can.
It doesn't matter. Russia doesn't want us on their border and given our machinations, who can blame them. We've turned Ukraine into a war zone over a country you seem to think we have no interest in.
Sure, there are so many forces today that want nothing more than to “hit Moscow from Ukraine”, obviously the bloodthirsty NATO being first. You should be on Russian TV, Lillia Gajewski. Or maybe you are, who knows.
Lillian is not wrong about this; over 16,000 ethnic Russians living on the Ukrainian border have been killed and photos released claiming Russia killed Ukranians. The propaganda making Russia look like a monster has been absolutely stunning. Dig deeper; this is more complicated and nuanced than you know.
“Nuanced”? And where did you get your “nuanced” information? Because only Russian media fabricated this kind of news. It’s telling you don’t bother to quote your sources for such lies.
What debate are you talking about? For at least the last eight months you have endlessly repeated the same ridiculous arguments about poor little Russia being pushed around by the nasty NATO, being completely oblivious to the fact that Putin himself has changed his tune, claiming that this is nothing less than about the “Russian world” - equivalent to the Nazi “lebensraum”.
Somebody who plays the same looney tunes when the conversation has completely changed is not interested in debates, but in spreading propaganda, in your case straight from Russia.
You forget Kaliningrad which is wedged between Poland and Lithuania and is the base for Russia’s Baltic fleet.
It was conceivable if the West had acquiesced in Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, that his next “request” would have been a Russian corridor to connect Kaliningrad to the rest of Russia.
You are free to ignore Putin’s clearly expressed revanchist views about Tsarist Russia’s lost territories. Those closer to the action do not have that same luxury.
Russia definitely wants a direct connection to Kaliningrad, and Poland, the Baltics and even Belarus are well aware of the fact. It was a "gift" to Russia for their role in WW II. Of course, without Allied aid, Russia probably would've collapsed, but who's counting?
And Russians remember every invasion that came through Ukraine because they were dumb enough not to control that landmass. They also know what is at stake. Also, the Ukraine is roughly a third ethnic Russian and the Ukrainian government, particularly under Zelensky and his predecessor, have been carrying out a near purge of them. This isn't simple. Both sides have every reason to keep going to the bitter end and even to drag Europe into it.
Russia is an empire of many peoples who are not Russians, most of whom are doing the fighting now for the "motherland". There was no danger of an invasion of Russia from anywhere, but Russia has routinely invaded its neighbors to the West. Ukraine is a third ethnic Russian - so what? Americans and Canadians are ethnically related as well, but we respect each other's sovereignty. Same with Mexico. Your argument sound like what Hitler used to justify the invasion of the Sudetenland.
You read Michael Tracy too? I should get off this comments thread and go read that one. I started, it looks enlightening, but I haven't found 44 minutes.
Another important consideration is the massive decrease in the national oil reserve. One source has it at a 30% decrease. That is massive, the worst since 1984. The left is all-in on the green new deal. RINOs and DEMS are all-in on wars and wearing blue and gold ribbons while homicide in the U.S. is out of control and our schools are spending far too much on DEI instead of reading and math skills. Check out these sources below. University of Michigan and Ohio State University spend nearly 30 million annually on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion staff.
DEI University of Michigan is $15.5 million annually:
The strategic petroleum inventory decline was carefully crafted by examining Biden’s approval rating. No other analysis was required, just like most of this administrations actions. Restocking should not be difficult. All the government has to do is provide a floor price for domestic production that is above the marginal cost to produce a barrel. Oh wait, we can’t do that because a key constituency will throw a fit!
The depletion of the strategic oil reserve is purely political - to lower gas prices before the Midterm elections - and puts the country at risk. It's terrible policy, but who's surprised?
Examples, please, NCMaureen. What evidence do you have that the left "means to crash the American economy?" From the time of Reagan, income disparity between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us has grown more quickly under Republican administrations that under Democrats. Republican administrations talk the talk of fiscal responsibility when a Democrat occupies the White House but when a Republican moves in, they spend like drunken sailors, cut taxes for the rich, and explode the debt and deficit. No one in Congress has fought harder for working class Americans than have two of the most liberal Senators -- Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Trump promised to revive coal mining in America. Thank goodness he failed -- coal mining jobs declined under his watch although his EPA made it easier for coal mines to pollute our rivers and atmosphere. He promised that winning a trade war with China would be easy. His tariffs hurt American manufacturers and consumers and achieved nothing. More jobs were created in the last 18 months of the Obama administration than in the first 18 months of Trump. I could go on, NCMaureen. Facts are stubborn things. Show me some that substantiate your allegations.
Promoting a fantasy that we can convert to wind and solar anytime soon. Subsidizing special interest industries.
Since Biden has been in office, Americans have lost 7.8 TRILLION DOLLARS in assets. We are in a recession. How much did the stock market go up under Trump?
Crime—-shops closing down because nothing is done about the shoplifters. Lefty DAs put them back on the street.
Growing government—87,000 new IRS agents!
A half trillion to pay off student loans for people making as much as $250,000/yr. This won’t be a one-time thing. Landscapers without a college education will be paying taxes to pay the loan for a kid with a worthless degree.
You need to try a little harder to base your allegations on facts, NCMaureen.
"Crippling the American energy industry." Fact: The Biden administration issued 34% more permits to drill on federal land in his first year in office than did Trump. The American fossil fuel giants have garnered record profits over the past year, and their stocks have been among the strongest sectors in the market.
" . . . a fanasy that we can convert to wind and solar anytime soon." In fact, it's been established that using natural gas as a "bridge" to clean renewable energy sources was a bill of goods promoted by the fossil fuel giants whom you seem to believe without question. Transitioning directly from coal to renewables is now cheaper, faster, and safer than by replacing coal with natural gas.
Donald Trump came to office in the middle of the longest bull stock market in history. The market continued to rise as it had been doing, but he failed to sustain the growth witnessed under Obama. Then along came Covid . . .
"How does Trump compare to Obama in the stock market? We share the facts on cumulative and annualized performance between Trump and Obama in the stock market. Cumulatively across the S&P 500, Trump is at 67.26% compared to Obama at 166.28% a difference of -99.02%. On the NASDAQ, Trump is at 137.56% compared to Obama at 262.26% a difference of -124.70%. Finally, on the DOW Jones, Trump is at 56.00% compared to Obama at 138.28% a difference of -82.28%."
The crime "crisis" has been largely misrepresented by the right. The rise is homicides began in 2019 under Trump and has continued. Other areas of violent crime have remained flat or declined. Smash and grab incidents in Los Angeles peaked in December of 2021 and drew lots of media attention. The incidents have declined since and robberies, burglaries, and theft are down from 2019. The right makes much of the post-Covid crime wave, blaming it on lax policing and immigrants. They deliberately ignore the explosion of gun sales during the pandemic and the impact that's had on the exploding homicide rate.
After years of Republican tax breaks for the rich and cuts to the IRS budget, huge corporations and the wealthiest plutocrats had little to worry about from an IRS audit. The number of audits dropped precipitously and the amount of uncollected taxes exploded, reaching an estimated $600 billion. The long overdue corrective action by the Biden administration will improve customer service, speed up refunds to working taxpayers, and direct the attention of auditors where it belongs -- on tax evading plutocrats and corporations. Long overdue.
I share your discomfort with the legislation to address the student loan problem. But the funds required to address the problem will not impact low-wage workers like landscapers. With child tax credits for two children and a dependent spouse, a worker making $25,000 a year would pay no federal income tax. Sadly, the same can be said for some huge multinational corporations until Biden instituted a $15% minimum.
You can actually argue drill permits? Ridiculous. Filled your tank lately? Gas was $1.99 in Jan 2021.
Landscapers can make 100k a year easily. Yes, they will pay taxes.
Tax breaks for the “rich”, because guess who pays most of the taxes? Should we give tax breaks to the poor, who you described as already paying no taxes? How many employees do poor people have?
During the Obama administration the stock market started in the dumper and had only one way to go, Up. During the Trump administration an already high stock market went even higher. Until Biden, who has wiped out at least 2 yrs of gains.
If you are unwilling to believe lectures given at Hillsdale by people who I bet you didn’t even check to see who they were, why should I believe you when npr and nbc are your sources?
NC Maureen: You charged, as many on the right do, that Biden "crippled the American energy industry." As I showed, that's patently false. The increase in the price of gas was a global phenomenon driven by post-Covid demand sharply increasing, a bottleneck in the refining industry due to hurricane damage, and the war in Ukraine which disrupted global energy markets. The price has come down steadily since the peak in June. America is addicted to cheap gas; that's one of the reasons we have a climate crisis -- our wanton, wasteful consumption of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel companies have reported record profits and their stocks have gained handsomely under Biden.
Poor people might actually make enough to pay some income taxes if the minimum wage had been passed as Biden proposed. You seem not to care about the working poor; a typical attitude held by conservatives.
I notice you had nothing to say about my corrective comment about the IRS. Mendacious Republicans, including Senator Grassley of Iowa allege that small business owners will have IRS agents with assault rifles knocking at their door. Instead, the beefed up IRS can get after more tax cheaters like Trump. Small business owners and working Americans have nothing to worry about and should applaud these efforts to collect what's due from the plutocrats.
You're quite inconsistent in your attacks. You allege that the billionaires are out to destroy capitalism on the one hand, then you turn around and defend the breaks that reduce their tax obligation. You can't have it both ways.
The increase in the stock market and housing market, under either party, is directly tied to the expansion of the money supply (M2). When M2 increases, so does everything that benefits from cheap debt. I saw a stat that for every $1 the Fed created under "covid relief," the S&P increased by $.92. This isn't a Dem/GOP issue, it's a factor of cheap money and deficit spending. It's also the reason the Fed is slow to raise rates and actually start quantitative tightening. They know the stock market and housing market will crash if they raise rates to where they need to be to get inflation under control. Both parties got us into this mess.
I can't believe Americans still believe and argue that the two parties are much different. Neither cares about middle class. Neither cares about slowing the concentration of wealth. Neither cares about the issues everyday Americans face beyond how we can be further exploited for financial gain at the top.
Look at the banking industry and the military industrial complex. Those two industries benefit regardless of which party is in office. That's who is pulling the strings and running the country. One could argue Big Pharma is a close third.
Every time I hear people quote MSM in an argument about which party is better just confirms that their strategy is working: keep us divided and distracted. That way we won't turn our focus to the real problem: a federal government that has sold out the American people.
Well said, R Rundio. The two party system in America has devolved into Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum or Tweedle Dumb to account for the MAGA element of the Republican Party. The Fed tried to raise rates under Trump, but he raised hell, and the Fed backed off. Then Covid hit and the Fed and Congress propped the economy up once again with trillions of funny money. The inflationary result was entirely predictable. The easy money had been "invested" in the stock market and the housing bubble, both of which will come tumbling down now. The American economy has been a zero sum game since Lester Thurow published his book The Zero-sum Society in 1980. Now we have the Modern Monetary Theorists trying to persuade us that governments can just print more money and keep economies afloat forever. If only it were that easy.
I agree. We were constantly told how strong our economy and stock market were; yet, the Fed could never raise rates back up to where they were. Our economy (both domestic and global) is reliant on cheap debt. It's probably coming down. Hopefully since most countries are in the same boat, we make it through ok.
I'd be interested to know who those nefarious Leftists are, too, so we can keep them from crashing the economy and such. But I have no idea who they are, either.
Here is a paragraph from an editorial in today’s WSJ from some native Alaskans who have been working to have oil drilling on their lands for decades. Do you think the environmentalists they refer to are conservatives or leftists—
“ We are tired of outside groups trying to turn this project and every other oil and gas project in our region into the poster child for a global movement away from fossil fuels. This is more than a political oil debate for us; it’s about access to land we were promised many years ago. Without projects like Willow and their crucial economic benefits, many of my neighbors would be forced to leave the lands they and their ancestors have inhabited for thousands of years.…”
Leftists sacrificing even indigenous people on the altar of climate change
The fed, the fbi, the Biden admin, the self professed socialists in key roles (Bernie, AOC). Lena Khan. Gavin Newsome. Larry Fink.
The list is very long, but if you’re asking a genuine question, it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion.
At the end though the simplest explanation —- that they’re a bunch of mediocre politicos without any useful ideas, who haven never built and know only how to divide and defame.
"it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion."
What make you assume I haven't done this "thinking" to reach my own conclusion? I have done so all my life. My conclusion stands:
"The Left" is not trying to "crash the economy" to start the New World Order or any other fantasy dreamed up by QAnon goobers. Period.
I agree with your lineup of mediocre politicians, but you forgot the dimwits from the Republican side of the aisle. Boebert? Gaetz? Greene? Trump and his pals?
Trump did not preside over the highest inflation in 40 years, or over two years of historic learning losses among school children. He’s also completely IRRELEVANT to the point of the thread, which is leftist idiocy.
The point of this thread may be "leftist idiocy," but it's perfectly fair to make the comparison because you're pretending that only the Left is lousy at governing. Plenty of idiocy on all sides to go around. I didn't list Trump to bash or single him out, only as one of the looney tune on the Right.
As for "he didn't preside over" high inflation and learnings losses, he would have had he been re-elected. Markets and social force are more powerful than any President.
This is strange but I find myself agreeing with you. I despise both parties and wish there was a strong middle of the road party but that wish is a fantasy.
I wish there was a strong centrist party, too, LP. One more interested in rebuilding our electric grid, filling potholes, rewriting our broken immigration policy, and upholding the Constitution rather than staging Shouty Theater minute after hour after day. I don't see that happening, alas.
Good to have agreement now and again, though! Best to you.
For the third and final time, I listed Trump along with a half-dozen other examples of lame politicians in Rightyland. In contrast, your obsession with the Left is tiresome, so I'm out.
If you let down the shields of your ideology and actually looked at history with honesty you would find the information necessary to explain all of this. Go back to Woodrow Wilson and the beginning of progressivism, the whole design was evolution not revolution. He understood that it would take an infiltration onto the media and the educational system and, as he stated, "three generations" to own the minds of the electorate. You have been trained to see everything that falls outside the scope of the media narrative as a conspiracy. You have been trained to hate those that disagree with you so that you will consider their opinions invalid. Closing your mind right now is EXACTLY what they want you to do. The simple thing to remember is that in this Republic, our elected representatives are there to do OUR bidding, no their own. Why would there be career politicians if the system was working the way it was designed? How do our representatives go to Washington as paupers and emerge as millionaires? Because they are representing the corporate interests that pay for them to get elected. If they keep us at odds, it stays this way. Considering the viewpoints of those you disagree with is imperative right now if we ever stand a chance of having government "FOR THE PEOPLE" again.
I like your comment, Michael, but I no longer celebrate the Wilson Presidency. Wilson, a Dixiecrat at heart, re-segregated the Civil Service and showed "Birth of a Nation" with its celebration of the KKK in the White House. I'd rather plant the birth of progressivism and the first trust-busting attacks on the gilded age with Teddy Roosevelt. But then I squirm at his efforts to launch American imperialism, the Treaty of Portsmouth, and other regrettable moves. But thanks for your cogent and potent comment.
There is a series of lectures on Hillsdale.edu from 2021. They concern the Great Reset as defined by the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. Suggest you listen. If you think the world’s billionaires convene in Davos once a year just to party, think again. These people hold all the power and they envision a very different world than the one we live in. And they are exerting it. They use climate change as the justification. Here’s an example of their power—ESG. Bullying companies to “voluntarily” comply with their standards, or they won’t get loans. They won’t get financial services. Talent will be dissuaded from working for them. This is a kind of fascism.
Schwab’s vision is to destroy capitalism as we know it. He wrote a book about it. So, yes, there is a plan, and he has powerful billionaires signing on.
NCMaureen: It's clear that "capitalism as we know it" has failed in a number of respects. Without adequate regulation, capitalism inevitably falls into brutal boom and bust cycles that exacerbate the unequal distribution of personal income resulting in the rich getting richer while the middle class stagnates or slips into poverty.
Any economic system will ensure prosperity and well-being only if it's compatible with the resources available to it from planet earth. Inadequately regulated capitalism is depleting our resources and natural systems faster than they can be replenished.
We're on the road to environmental implosion. The only acceptable kind of growth is sustainable growth. Our politics are still driven by the Bill Clinton mantra: "It's the economy, stupid!" We on the road to self destruction until and unless we accept that "It's the ECOLOGY, stupid!" and adjust our lifestyles to that imperative. Hillsdale College serves the interests of the billionaires that fund its extensive ties to far-right interests.
Kstils, you cited only part of my statement, leaving out the important qualifier, "in a number of respects." I stand by the statement and everything that follows about the need for adequate regulation to preclude the otherwise inevitable boom and bust cycles of capitalism and its relentless need for "growth" on a finite planet that has led us down a path leading to environmental implosion. That's hardly a "sane" option.
One of the Hillsdales lectures that you won’t listen describes the environmental costs of the green movement. Guess how much earth has to be mined to get enough rare earth minerals to build one Tesla battery?
NCMaureen: I'm well aware of the limited supplies of lithium, cobalt, rare earths, and other essential components of our hi-tech world. I've read an entire book on the subject, Michael Klare's The Race for What's Left. But I'm also aware that scientists at MIT have developed battery technology based on three abundant and inexpensive materials -- aluminum, sulphur, and salt.
But we already know that we cannot go on pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, so alternative energy sources must be found if we hope to sustain a lifestyle as energy dependent as ours.
And I know enough about the Hillsdale lectures to view them with skepticism. The fossil fuel companies take their cues from the tobacco industry. When the surgeon general tied tobacco use to cancer, Big Tobacco initiated a propaganda war to counter the science. They established "research" centers at universities and bought off scientists who sold their integrity by claiming to have experimental evidence that tobacco is safe. Now, after countless needless deaths, we know it was all a scam. Big Oil is doing the same thing today, using outlets like Hilldale sow doubt and confusion about climate science and alternative energy.
As for the allegation about environmental costs of producing lithium-ion batteries, they are dubious at best.
Transport and Environment, an NGO that studies the environmental impact of transportation systems compared the impacts of gas-powered and electric vehicles. They found:
Electric vehicles require far less in the way of mined metals.
It is anticipated that the amount of lithium, cobalt, and nickel to produce a car battery will drop significantly over the next decade, and by 2035 it is expected that over a fifth of the lithium and 65% of the cobalt and nickel will come from recycling. The full study can be found at:
So, instead of technology we know to be harmful (internal combustion engines powered by gas) let us hope that the technology to produce electric vehicles powered by clean energy can be perfected. Otherwise, we're in deep doo-doo.
Do I think there is a concerted conspiracy of leftists out to crush our economy? No. But in their collective ignorance of basic science, math, and physics, coupled with their utterly deluded “moral” system can only produce failed governance that inevitably leads to very bad economic results.
If you want some specifics: unhinged hysterical desire to “kill fossil fuels”, incoherent monetary policy that will depress equity values while doing nothing whatsoever for inflation that’s constantly fed by more printed money giveaways.
Lastly, the left’s slavish allegiance to the people who have hurt more American kids than any external force ever has: the teachers unions. So long as the left is in the pocket of the teachers unions, they will continue to have a direct political incentive to perpetuate the system that condemn our kids to a life of ignorance, and sheepish fearful obedience to The Scary Moral Panic du jour.
Oh, please Zoya, it's the right, deluded by the merchants of doubt in the fossil fuel industries, that faithfully ignores science, math, and physics in their rejection of climate science and the looming crisis that's devastating growing portions of our planet. What's unhinged about acknowledging the rapidly expanding desertification, the rising sea levels and melting glaciers, the ever-increasing acreage lost each year to wildfires, the advent of the sixth great extinction event, the only such calamity sparked by a single species -- us?
As for inflation and monetary policy: At least 6 of the 7 Fed governing board were appointed or reappointed by Trump. Inflation is a global problem that's been brewing for decades as we propped up our economy with near-zero interest rates and Congress pumped yet more funny money into the system by way of deficit spending and irresponsible tax cuts. Both parties are to blame, but it's the Republicans who consistently talk the talk of fiscal responsibility until they're in control, then they go about blowing up the debt and deficits even faster than do the Democrats.
You have no evidence that the current Fed actions will do "nothing whatsoever for inflation." It's likely that these actions will spark at least a mild recession and slow the economy down. With reduced demand, prices will stabilize. It will be painful, and working people will suffer the most. The Fed's policies are not liberal and most of the Board members are solid Republicans.
But you're right about this: interest rate hikes won't solve prolonged droughts, floods, or huge losses from hurricanes, tornadoes, and other impacts from our changing climate. Food crises are emerging around the world and will only get worse, exacerbated further by the war in Ukraine. Ignoring climate science and supporting further fossil use will only accelerate the inflationary and famine inducing impacts of climate change.
As for our schools. We have a nationwide shortage of qualified school teachers. Why anyone would choose to invest in a master's degree so they can teach in our under funded schools and subject themselves to the abuse of bigoted, hostile parents is beyond me. The right's efforts to privatize and dumb down our schools is succeeding and it's a tragedy.
I respectfully disagree with this notion. As a liberal, a crashed economy would hurt me as much as it hurts righties. Why would I want that for myself or you? Makes no sense. I know most of Bari's commentators are addicted to the notion that the Evil Commie Librul Leftie McLeft Woke Groomers want to burn down everything. That notion is as absurb as Lefty McGroomer claiming that right wingers want to set up death camps for progressives. You don't, do you?
The problem is that there are people on the Left--specifically the people who are ideologically guiding the Left--who have stated plainly that this is their aim. If it were a few random crazies, then yeah, it would be absurd. But it isn't a few crazies. It's the people who have long been on the cutting edge of Leftist thought. What they think now, the rest of the Left will think sooner or later.
A crashed economy is not going to hurt the powerful on the left. Amazon, Meta, Apple will be fine. Oh, some of the smaller players on the left, you perhaps, would be hurt, but they don’t care about you. They want power and control. You know the saying…gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.
Great Depression II will harm everyone, even Big Corporate, so profoundly that I honestly don't believe anyone is trying to bring that about. Democrats can't organize a one-car funeral, so to think they're orchestrating the vast conspiracy needed to destroy our economy makes me smile. Republicans are too invested in screaming "commie libtard pedo groomer One World Order!!!" to bother crashing anything.
I hope I'm right, because I do not want to live through GDII.
And you are not very polite. You can disagree with someone without insulting them.
We have exchanged some bitter words on this BBS but on the whole the debates are civil, except when we debate a hard core leftist. It seems to me the left can't help themselves. They almost always devolve into insults, like you just did.
Yup. This all plays right into the hands of the Leftists who WANT our country to collapse. Their aim is to build their utopia on its ashes. They always think that the next time is the time it will work.
Like I have always said, the left is Hell bent on destroying our democracy. They have this sick notion that out of the ashes of our of our wonderful system of government the workers will arise shoulder to shoulder and lead us into a Communist paradise. No matter what history tells these idiots, communism is a failed system. It never has worked and it never will. If the Chinese don't get to us first, the green initiative and the burning of our cities by the left led rioters will.
How did an article on the war in Ukraine slide so quickly into unrelated and utterly fatuous comments about the "left" being "Hell bent on destroying our democracy?" Can you give me a specific example, LonesomePolecat?
Which party is passing laws to empower state legislatures to overrule the will of the voters? Which party has passed laws impeding the right to vote in more than twenty states? Which party is replete with angry members who still believe, without any evidence and contrary to countless audits, court rulings, and investigations, that the 2020 Presidential election was fraudulent? Such attacks on our democratic processes and the results of our elections undermine faith in our system and lay the groundwork for a more successful effort to deny the will of the voters in the next Presidential election.
It's the far right that's shown its colors -- its love for orange-faced autocrats and bullies; its yearning for a tough guy to rule with an iron hand. It's been the forces on the left that have fought for civil rights for African Americans, women, and other groups that have not enjoyed full participation and representation in our society. Get over it.
I'm sorry it took so long to address your post. I answer posts like yours about twice a month and it gets tiring.
I will address you post and try to answer all of your concerns on the following conditions:
1. when answering me you will not change the subject. I try to use facts and history to address subjects in all of my posts. When confronted with something they can't refute, they will say something like, "Well what about Trump?" When the subject is say, Biden. That is what I mean about a subject change. They can't answer what I have presented so they divert.
2. No matter how angry you get with me through frustration, you do not call me names and I promise I won't do that to you. IOW, let's keep this civil.
I find that people on the left usually can't do the above two things. They get real nasty.
My comment began with an objection to changing the subject, Lonesome. The article was about the war in Ukraine and you and others turned it into an attack on the left and baseless allegations that the threat to our democracy comes from the left. I offered specific, factual evidence of attacks on our democratic infrastructure that have come from the right and that are supported and encouraged by Donald Trump. I don't need admonitions about civil discourse. I post under my real name, I don't hide behind a mask or handle, and for that I've been threated with violence by right-wing extremists. I await your "factual" response to my comment. Have a good day.
This is America, people can believe that an election has issues...seems like that was the prevailing thought when "orange man" won. That doesn't mean our Republic is under attack.
3) Contrast African American wages and unemployment between the Trump presidency and the Biden presidency.
4) Name a Democrat led city that has actually made life better in the last 2 years for minority residents....or any residents. What was the number of homeless across American in 2018 as compared to 2022.
I could go on. Instead of throwing out platitudes with ZERO facts as Lonesome has duly noted, answer the above and then we'll have a conversation.
The rest of your points are off subject. I'll say only that those who protested the 2016 election results did so on the basis of the un-democratic features of our electoral system. Trump lost the popular vote but "won" the election because the Electoral College empowers smaller states and disadvantages larger ones, resulting in such denials of the will of the people. The Senate, which confirms Supreme Court appointments is similarly undemocratic by its very makeup. Combine those impediments to majority rule with gerrymandering in the House, and we are left with a crisis of legitimacy in the courts, congress, and, occasionally, the Presidency. No Democratically-controlled state legislature following the 2016 election tried to pass laws making it harder to vote or empowering themselves to overrule the will of the voters.
So the electoral college should be abolished because only those living in large urban areas should get a vote? Who cares about the less dense states or the rural states! That's EXACTLY the point! One vote per citizen. It shouldn't matter where you live. I have this inkling that if it were the other way around, you'd want to keep the electoral college. Notice NO ONE in the 2016 rejection even mentioned the electoral college....it was all RUSSIAN COLLUSION!
Lonesome was right....you're incapable of arguing on fact....all conjecture. My sincere apologies to Lonesome for attempting this!
I tried to engage him but he did what I asked him not to do change the subject and never give me a direct answer.
I have two simple rules. Don't change the subject and don't call me names.
He couldn't do it.
It is impossible to engage these leftists in civil discourse.
I would have asked the same questions you just did and that is to be specific ie he said some states restrict voting. Which states and what is the wording of their "restrictive" bills?
Remember when they said asking for a photo id was keeping people from voting? Well if that is the case, why do all of the Democrat state conventions and their national convention ask for a photo id to gain entrance? Isn't that restricting people from participating in the conventions.
To get on an airplane you have to show a photo id. Isn't that restricting access to travel?
I could go on and on. For example, if the Dems aren't at all racists and are such wonderful protectors of minorities why did they elect Robert Byrd senate majority leader and minority leader multiple times? Robert Byrd was a Grand Cyclopes in the KKK. He filibustered the 1964 civil right bill, the longest filibuster in senate history. It to 20 Rep votes to help the Dems break the filibuster. You will never hear that little fact out of the mouths of these defenders of the minorities.
And who but you, Lonesome, is calling people names -- "Lying, (sic) hypocrites all!!! The left are a bunch of lying distorting jerks." I declare this conversation over because you evade every civil effort I've made to urge you to respond to my original comment and now you have succumbed to sweeping generalizations and crude name calling. Good day.
You and NCMaureen are the ones who changed the subject, Lonesome and my first comment made note of that. I never called you any name other than your handle. You're being evasive and laying down ground rules that I've never broken in the first place and I refuse to accede to your silliness. When you're ready to discuss the challenges I offered, I'm ready at any time. Now MadaboutMD is changing the subject yet again, asking me to respond to matters I never raised except on very obvious one -- the fact that Republican state legislatures have passed laws making it harder to vote and/or empowering state legislatures to reverse the will of the voters. Any informed citizen should know about these outrageous challenges to our democracy:
I was responding to Sean and MCMareen. I asked you for civil discourse and you turned me down. I don't think you responded with facts. You responded with generalities. I will give you actual historical facts that I can back up refuting your post but I guess it will never be. You sound pretty angry which is typical of my experiences with the left.
Please show me any part of my commentary that is outside the bounds of civility. I responded to you with facts -- state legislatures across the country have passed new laws restricting voting, access to polls, and bills that empower legislatures to overturn the will of the voters. You have not refuted those statements because they're factually true. I could have added that far-right MAGA groups have harassed, intimidated, and threatened election officials from both parties in several key states. Please show me evidence of a similar nature supporting your contention that the left threatens democracy. I don't expect a reply because you're already making excuses for withdrawing from the exchange. Am I angry? You bet I am. I'm angry with anyone who threatens our democratic electoral process. Does that prevent me from participating in a civil discussion? Of course not. Anyone who's not concerned about the threats to our democracy and angry with those who are willing to participate in seditious acts to undermine it is either an enemy of democracy or too deluded to acknowledge the threat. Show me your hand, Lonesome, or acknowledge that it's time to fold 'em.
I am actually far more concerned about Chinese Imperialism, because their soft power on the West Coast has grown at a frightening rate, and they've already shown they can feed our federal authorities crafty lies to get them to wreck our country on the inside.
I majored in Chinese and it's a pretty cool language, actually. If we all could speak and read Chinese, it might make us all a bit more civilized and cultured.
But the Communist regime of China is another beast altogether. Monsters.
China has had all those things... but it has also had centuries of peace and prosperity that fostered economic expansion and stunning cultural achievements.
I'm not some shill for China; but having studied the history, culture, and language (and having lived in Taiwan), I do have a deep appreciation for it.
The subject was China not the West. Instead of addressing the subject you do what the left often does. Instead addressing the subject, they change the subject and that change is often ant western democracies.
Does the West have a bloody history. Of course, they do but we have changed. China hasn't and to prove this please gave me a list of all the death camps that now exist in the Western Democracies.
I did address the subject of this thread, which is not just China, but China and the West. You argued that "the history of China swims in blood, poverty, and famine." I pointed out that ours did, too, until WWII changed that.
We're both right. China and the West had the same bloody history, but the world wars changed our trajectory for the better and, I hope, forever.
Thanks to Mao, China's trajectory became worse, with death and "re-education" camps for any minority that annoys its party leadership. China's brutality continues to this day.
For the record, Western democracy is the best invention for the care of human needs and spirit since fire and the wheel.
Are you an isolationist NCMaureen? Do you believe America and Americans should live in a bubble unperturbed about the rise of Russia or China or any other warring nation with expansionist designs? If you’re not, then your questions are moot.
Regardless, if you do believe you won’t eventually be affected by what happens in the rest of the world, that America should just take care of its own, I’d suggest you’re sadly mistaken.
Americans should always take care of its own first. always. even on the plane they tell you. if the oxygen mask drops. do your own mask FIRST before helping others. good advice. track the funds we are sending into a black hole. yes that is a burden on Americans..
Contained proxy wars to nip expansion in the bud are cheaper in the long run than appeasing and letting things snowball.
WWII would have been much cheaper if the annexation of Austria had been opposed, rather than kicking the can down the road until the Panzer tanks rolled into Poland.
Before this is over American taxpayers will have sent 100 billion in printed money and our critical weapons supplies will have been depleted. I’d like to know what we get out of this. OK, we help the Ukrainian people defend themselves, all good. And if we were rolling in cash I’d be cheering. But we are in a recession, we are suffering from inflation from too much printed money. Our savings are evaporating before our eyes. Our people need help.
The best that can be hoped for is a withdrawal of Russian forces. But Putin’s ego and his vision of Russia are on the line. He’s a wounded animal now. He’s not going to surrender. So what then?
It is in our national interest and a national priority to prevent Putin from expanding Russian influence and control over former Eastern Bloc nations and rebuilding a threatening Soviet empire at the expense of free Europe. The political experiment in appeasement that allowed Hitler to annex Austria and invade Czechoslovakia and Poland and led directly to World War Two in Europe should be a cautionary tale. Putin has repeatedly stated that the biggest mistake in Russia's history was allowing the break-up of the Soviet Union. His ambition is to restore hegemony over Eastern Europe and to weaken NATO and US influence in the West. The
US does not have the luxury of isolation anymore, either economically or militarily. The money spent in defending the Ukraine is well spent and much preferred to sending our troops to defend Europe against Putin's aggression.
Bullshit.
A nuclear attack on Western Europe and.perhaps the United States, after he evacuated his leadership to underground shelters in the Urals,, just as the Soviets would nave done.
Please read the history of WW2 to learn what happens when a tyrant is not stopped at the beginning of a mad lust for power.
Gee, did I miss something Mary Ellen?
They did not know then, just like we do not know now.
Please read a history of WW2.
Maureen, your comment ignores the steps that entangled the U.S. and then NATO in Ukraine in the first place. It was hardly a plot from the left but the persistence of neocons, most of them Republicans, who ignored our pledge at the end of the cold war and the advice of our most informed advisors, like George Kennan, not to extend NATO eastward.
Much of that effort was undertaken to advance the interests of American corporations. Neocon Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland and the late Senator John McCain called for the overthrow of a legally-elected albeit corrupt President of Ukraine in 2014, meeting with neo-Nazis among others, and passing out sandwiches to the Maidan rebels. Shortly thereafter, American Big Ag companies moved in to snatch up rich Ukrainian farm land, fossil fuel companies looked to the oil wells in the Donbas and the chance to sell LNG in Ukraine once the Russian gas was shut off. Big finance profited from the loans that were extended to prop up the government and the MIC began selling weapons to the expanded NATO members.
If you'd bother to look, you'd find that what remains of the left in this country (not the corporate Democratic Party) has been opposed to our policies in Ukraine for years. Take a look at Tom Dispatch, Consortium News, or Google up Chris Hedges' articles and interviews. We're waging a proxy war in hopes of weakening Putin and Russia and advancing the interests of American corporations. The war was entirely avoidable had we abided by our agreements at the end of the Cold War of the Minsk agreements of 2014.
https://medium.com/@rdebacher/whats-really-up-in-ukraine-db58fec7d162
"Much of that effort was undertaken to advance the interests of American corporations."
Almost everything--everything--this nation does or does not do is in service to Big Corporate. As two-time Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler correctly noted nearly a century ago:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Yes, I’ve heard this argument. Always America’s fault. No other country involves itself in the politics of other nations, right?
Ukraine is an independent country now and if its people want to join NATO, I don’t blame them.
Of course Putin is threated by NATO at its doorstep. But NATO is a defensive organization. Why should he fear it? It’s his pride and ambition to restore a Russian empire that drives the attack.
America is not unique in this. Every nation on Earth involves itself in other people's politics and spies on their friends, neighbors, and neutrals, hoping to gain an edge for power, profit, and politics. We spy on Israel, Israel spies on us, we spy on England, England spies on France, which spies on Australia, which spies on China, which interferes with . . .
Always was, always will be.
I agree with you. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and if it wishes to join NATO, the EU, or the Barnum and Bailey Circus, it has every right to do so. Putin has no right to invade and conquer, and Ukraine is correctly repelling him and his unhappy troops.
Quite right about Ukrainian sovereignty, Shane, but it was silly and provocative for it to make EU and NATO membership a constitutional goal after the Maidan revolt. Ukraine has long been rated one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It does not now and won't for a long time meet the standards for EU or NATO membership. Putin's invasion was unjustified and should be repelled. But the long chain of events that led to the invasion could have been handled differently without compromising American security unless "security" is defined as advancing American corporate interests as it so often has been in the past.
Agreed, particularly with your last sentence . . . advancing the interests of Big Corporate takes precedence over almost every thing else this nation does.
$100bn is a small price to pay unless we're willing to be rich but without influence, like say Japan.
The era of unchallenged US supremacy is over. (I'd say the change began when China joined the WTO). Our GDP is 20 $trillion, China's is closing in, already at $12t. Given our population we're unlikely to hang on to the #1 GDP spot. So we need to help allies and challenge competitors when needed - If we don't put up then we're giving up.
I agree, EP. you make a great point about China joining the WTO being a really key and underappreciated turning point.
This war could have ended much earlier as Putin wanted to negotiate. Boris Johnson's wife Carrie Johnson persuaded Boris to send missiles and artillery to Ukraine so that was the end of peace and Boris. Goodbye Boris.
Who says Putin wanted to negotiate? Putin? And was his offer to negotiate before or after he invaded and stole the Crimea?
Russia's ties to Crimea go back centuries, and when we supported the Maidan revolt to install a pro-western administration, planning the revolt during the Sochi Olympics while Putin was on his best behavior, Putin's reaction was entirely predictable, if deplorable. But Ukraine's claim to Crimea is circumstantial at best. It was assigned to Ukraine by Khrushchev in the mid 1950s for administrative purposes. The population of Crimea is 60% Russian, Stalin having "relocated" the Tartars decades earlier. It was never part of Ukraine prior to the administrative assignment within the USSR.
Yes, Russia agreed to recognize Ukraine's borders at the end of the cold war if Ukraine gave up its nukes. But it's factually wrong to assert that Crimea had long, close ties to Ukraine. Russian troops were stationed throughout Crimea prior to the "invasion" to ensure Russian access to its vital seaport in Sebastopol, a Russian possession since Peter the Great.
The events of 2014 -- the Maidan revolt and the Russian annexation of Crimea and fighting in Donbas were "settled" by the Minsk agreements, signed in September of that year. This agreement called for a cease fire, prisoner exchanges, and reform of the Ukrainian constitution, eliminating its aspirations for NATO membership, and granting a degree of autonomy to parts of the Donbas -- areas with large ethnic Russian populations that had suffered abuse and discrimination from right wing elements of the Ukrainian government. While both sides violated elements of the agreement, it was Ukraine, not Russia, that formally disavowed the treaty in 2018. The U.S. could have done more to pressure Ukraine toward a full implementation of the agreement. We didn't, Ukraine formally ended the agreement, and the road to a wider conflict was opened. That doesn't justify or excuse the subsequent Russian invasion or the wanton attacks on civilians, the torture, abuse, and killing of combatants, or other war crimes. I do believe, however, that this war was avoidable. We chose not to pursue such options.
This is a very sensible view, Richard, and I agree with virtually all of it. I would have preferred, as I'm sure you did, that Ukraine and Russia had quietly negotiated a new border that would "move" the Russian population centers of Donbas formally into Russia, create a land bridge through eastern Crimea to protect the port, and otherwise settle their differences peacefully. They could have announced this border move jointly along with trade agreements that benefitted both, told the Donbas people to move to whichever side of the border suited them best, paid for the relocations, and called it a day.
But nobody asked me, so this shit happened.
Who says Putin wanted to negotiate? Putin? And was his offer to negotiate before or after he invaded and stole the Crimea?
Some people seem to believe that the 100 billion the US might end by spending to help Ukraine fend off the Russian invasion is some kind of charity, while Putin’s Russia poses no existential threat to the US. This is totally short-sighted, as Ukraine is just the first bite that the Russian and Chinese empires would want. As to the money, it’s pretty mean to whine about 100 billions against tens of thousands of destroyed lives, after Trump and Biden together have wasted more than 5 trillion dollars in the last few years. It’s also outright absurd to imagine that we don’t help the Ukrainians, the money saved will fix the problems in the US. Exactly how many problems have the last 5 trillions spent in the US solved? I mean, other than causing rampant inflation ?
Bingo. They're not related.
There are far worse ways to spend my tax money than helping stop Czar Putin from eating and digesting a free and sovereign Ukraine. Many of our wars, from Iraq to the mighty liberation of ... um, Grenada . . . were stupid and pointless. This is not. Particularly when Ukraine is so rich in natural resources we might need to purchase down the road to keep out economy going, and now we will be first in line at the counter.
The national ills you correctly list are independent of any help we give Ukraine.
“ Particularly when Ukraine is so rich in natural resources we might need […]”
Yep. That’s the real answer.
Like General Butler opined, "War is a racket."
Good points, Shane, although I will say that Grenadians LOVE America and Americans for saving their country from the Cubans. The invasion also saved many African lives that those who know this history will quickly agree with. You hear it constantly when you're there.
Really? Our invasion had that big an impact on real people? That's fascinating, Sea Sentry, thanks for letting me know. I'm delighted that what for Reagan was only a political stunt turned out to be good for actual lives. The things we learn in Bariland ...
I know. I was shocked the first time I went there as well. There's a museum dedicated to the U.S. expulsion of the Cubans, and Reagan's name is spoken of with reverence. People come up to you and say "thank you". Not your typical overseas experience if you're an American.
History has repeatedly taught us that if you don't dissuade such aggression, it continues and often results in a much wider war that would plunge the entire world into recession, including the U.S. And a wider war is much more expensive as we all know. Our problems here in the U.S. are due to the gross mismanagement of our economy by our elected officials over many years. We are spending trillions on entitlements that enable inactivity and bad habits, and on programs that don't work but line the pockets of the well-connected. We have an open border and incoherent public health policy. Not defending Ukraine won't solve our problems here - we have to do that. They are not connected.
NC Maureen
You must have a very long nose. What America will get out of this is obvious - an end to Russian imperialism without putting one American boot on the ground.
Russians have no will to fight in Ukraine whereas Ukrainians are fighting for the survival of their nation. A Ukrainian victory is inevitable and would already have occurred if America’s cognitively impaired President had supplied weapons earlier.
You are as illogical as Jordan Peterson and as uncaring as Tucker Carlson, who has at least admitted that he was wrong. You are still clueless.
Just like we were going to stop the spread of communism by fighting a war in Vietnam? Did that not start "without putting one American boot on the ground?" What happens when this escalates to requiring boots on the ground? Will you then decide it's not worth fighting or funding? There is not a single mention of trying to negotiate some kind of resolution. The only thing our government talks about is more war. Do you really expect the Ukraine to win this without requiring actual personnel? To say a Ukrainian victory is inevitable and would have occurred sooner with more weapons makes you sound like you work for the CIA or Northrop Grumman. Please provide an example of when we've ever been successful winning a conflict by doing nothing besides supply weapons and "aid.". At some point it requires aircraft and/or personnel. Once we provide either, it's a full blown war.
“ A Ukrainian victory is inevitable ”
This is a statement hoping for wish fulfillment.
The question is what does a “victory” look like?
Personal attacks are unnecessary and unhelpful.
Jordan Peterson is illogical? Seriously?? 🧐
Russian imperialism doesn't affect me, my community, or this country, and I see no reason to believe that a loss in Ukraine will end Russian imperialism. We're hurting ourselves more by fighting them than we would by allowing their expansion.
Please tone down the hate and the personal attacks, especially when your comment is mostly just imagination, speculation, and insults.
All imperialism affects you.
That’s like saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
There is no logic to either statement.
This is like saying "everything that happens everywhere affects everyone" true in an allegorical sense but useless in real life.
Try explaining with something meaningful, helpful, or educational, rather than reasserting a conclusion that I find baseless.
Jordan might be the most intelligent and compassionate person I've seen in the modern world. An extremely rare celebrity who sincerely has no concern for money or power. Incredible person and my role model.
That's certainly a part of it but even before that you can see how his lectures got enormous amounts of views. I think more than anything he has risen to prominence because so many people have been moved and helped through his insights.
This is really the cost of doing business with a brutal dictator as if he were a rational member of the world community. Germany is particularly at fault. Europe was especially stupid about their anti-energy agenda.
What is it worth to get rid of Putin? Probably more that $100 billion, especially if it deters China from its belligerent ambitions.
If Russia drains our weapons reserves, what is there to "deter" China? This was a stupid, stupid conflict to get into.
Our navy deters China. Ukraine is a land war. We won't need anti-tank weapons if China tries to invade Taiwan, we will need the Navy.
Stop allowing MIC sycophants to manipulate you with their constant threats of “if we don’t do this or that CHINA’S GOING TO INVADE TAIWAN.” Taiwan is a heavily armed island with fewer than 15 beaches that would allow for an amphibious invasion, all of which are bordered by cliffs. China would need to deploy *at least* 1.5 million troops if they had any hopes of being successful against Taiwans 450,000 man military and that number is likely way too low. Then there’s the whole problem of transporting 1.5 million troops over 100 miles to invade- that would require something like 1500 war ships and thousands more vessels- China currently has 355 ships and submarines total. And again, these are all lowball estimates.
Taiwan also has 1.5 million reservists.
Troop carriers crossing the Strait would be very vulnerable to air strikes, and Taiwan does have around 300 combat aircraft including over 100 of their own indigenous fighter-bombers. They also have a lot of missiles.
Obviously China has numerical superiority in every category, but any such adventure would be very expensive for them... and is not guaranteed to succeed. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is a highly advanced democratic state with some of the most advanced industries in the world. They are an important asset to the U.S. and Japan, both of which countries have warned China against an incursion.
Should they just go ahead and invade, we'd be forced to sanction China at every level. Apple would be skrewed given their most profitable devices are all assembled there. Which is why they're opening factories in SE Asia and the U.S. currently (Arizona, Texas).
But China would be royally skrewed. Their manufacturers and exporters would lose 25-30% of their business and this would likely tip their already-shaky economy into recession. Their real estate bubble which is already starting to pop would burst more quickly, probably hundreds of millions of people would lose their assets and savings, and you would start to see open questioning of Beijing's policies, if not an uprising which is virtually impossible given the size of domestic military. They're very good at shooting unarmed college students, anyway.
EDIT: I would also note that people including even some liberals would demand the U.S. defend Taiwan. If we're willing to do so much for a corrupt, backward shit hole like Ukraine, why wouldn't we help a fellow democracy that is very pro-American despite lack of diplo relations? It would spark a debate perhaps but in the end the U.S. would be forced to do the right thing, and China's economy would likely tank as a result. So might ours, but unlike them, we can re-source products to other manufacturing regions like SE Asia, Mexico, and our own homeland where manufacturing is actually undergoing a renaissance.
Uh, China doesn't need to invade us. They just cut off our supplies. You really don't understand the position our so-called leaders and captains of industry have left us in, do you? And all China has to do to Taiwan is surround them and cut off their supplies. They'll starve to death. And given that China is obviously not afraid to kill their own people . . . I'd say you're the one being manipulated. This is not a fight we want. Regular American people will suffer and the nation would not survive it. We are absolutely nothing close to the power we used to be.
🙄
1. I’m not interested in fighting any wars with anyone, that includes China and/or Russia.
2. Taiwan has a 28 month supply of rice and 12 months supply of fruits/veggies for its population in the case of a Chinese blockade. They also have large domestic pork production and aquaponic farms.
3. China is significantly more vulnerable to a food blockade. I assure you, this won’t be the route they take.
4. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t *need* 95% of the shit we import from China. We are vulnerable with respect to pharmaceutical production, I’ll grant you that. Otherwise, they can keep their plastic toys and solar panels. We’ll be okay.
5. I highly suggest you do real research instead of just regurgitating Warhawk talking points w/ regards to China and the leverage/power they hold over us. China is vital to convenience, not survival.
(1) Me either, which is why I don't like them kicking the tail of the dragon.
(2) So after two years, what happens? And they import more than food, such as medicine and fuel. Taiwan is an *island*. Trust me, the Chinese can wait them out.
(3) Not if they're friendly with Russia, most of South America, and the rest of Asia. You're making a *huge* assumption that put to the test, the rest of the world would side with us in a blockade because they like their cheap China shit too.
(4) Yes, but that 5% includes rare earth metals, antibiotics and other medicines, all those lovely little solar panels they keep insisting we install, wind turbines, the parts for semiconductors and microchips . . . do I really need to go on?
(5) I am far from a warhawk. We *cannot* and I repeat *cannot* win this fight, so picking it is suicidal. We're straining ourselves in a freaking proxy war with Russia in Ukraine *just* providing materiel. There is literally no way for us, in our current state, to even survive a cold war with China much less a hot one.
I agree that putting ourselves in a position to be dependent on solar panels (or wind turbines for that matter) is the dumbest thing we could possibly do lest we enter a Cold War with China but I totally disagree that our stupid support of Ukraine is leaving us vulnerable in terms of military equipment/power. Our DOD is literally dumping the shit we don’t want/need on Ukraine. That’s part of the grift. Unload the old stuff so the DOD has an excuse to contract for the new. And China doesn’t possess those rare earth minerals, most of which are located in Africa: they control the mining. Good luck holding onto those mining/production lines when their entire Navy is engaged in a full blown food embargo on Taiwan.
As big and powerful as China is, it’s not *that* big and powerful. I’m not saying we should be picking fights but Im sure as shit not interested in total appeasement of that a-hole Xi just bc he might make my life a little less cushy.
Go look up the Belt and Road Initiative. It doesn't matter that those rare earth metals are in Africa (though China has them as well). China has been positioning itself to control them. And if you didn't want to appease Xi, depending on how old you are, you should have been kicking up a fuss when Clinton and Bush invited China into the WHO and made gave China most favored nation trading status, and then when we allowed all our companies to move their manufacturing over there or to source necessary parts of their products over there.
You need to take some time to read Chinese history. They once controlled their known world by establishing client states. They're doing it again.
And, yes, Ukraine is having an effect on our stockpile: https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/may/03/ukraine-a-drain-on-us-arsenal/
Lillia is right about our naval power. There is no way our decaying Navy can protect Taiwan, just off the coast of mainland China, any more than China could invade Catalina island. We simply can't project power that far against a peer or near-peer military power.
Have you ever heard of the Faukland Islands war? England's Navy was much smaller than ours was but they projected a lot of power across an ocean.
And there is also Japan, which is the X factor in this.
Yes, but to paraphrase from former Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen, Argentina is no China. Japan is certainly an X factor as you say, and I'm sure there's a lot of discussion in Japan about what their role might be that I'm not privy to.
Are you a Navy guy? My understanding is, the U.S. Navy is still vastly more powerful than China's, but they now have numerical superiority, which is "not nothing" according to a top admiral.
In a conventional war, the U.S. would mop the ocean floor with China's navy, and could probably decimate their land forces with some precision bombing raids and a massive barrage of Tomahawks.
If it escalated to nuclear, both countries would lose, but China would lose 10x the people we would, largely because their pop. is concentrated along the coasts whereas we are more sparsely distributed in a similar size land mass. (Now if they took out SF, Chicago, and DC, the evil side of me questions whether that would actually be so bad.)
I'm not a Navy guy, but I can swim if that helps. I think head to head in a swimming pool, the U.S. would still prevail. The problem is projecting power that far - think resupplying munitions, fuel, logistics, and rotating sailors. Remember that we don't have Subic Bay and Clark AFB any longer. Guam could be incapacitated and Japan may or may not be willing to be dragged into a war by being our only source of near supply, other than possibly Australia. And don't think the PRC won't have a significant 5th column in Taiwan. The scene on the ground there may not so much represent a defense as a chaotic civil war. Our fleet is declining and in disrepair as recent accidents show, though maybe CRT and equity training will tip the scales in our favor. China won't resort to nukes because they know time is on their side. Taiwan will have to defend itself the way Ukraine has if it wants to remain independent and free.
Nope very few Communist sympathizers in Taiwan. Up until the 1980s such people were shot dead. Maybe a couple thousand, including some visitors or illegal immigrants from the mainland. But not a significant population in an island of 23 million.
I was thinking along the lines of sleeper agents. Well-trained agents can create a lot of havoc without large numbers.
probably true. I wonder how extensive Taiwan's internal security and intelligence services are these days.
You're thinking way smaller than China is. And they don't need to fight us. Do you actually realize how many of our basics are made in China? All rhey need to do is just stop shipping us things like antibiotics. So no our "superior naval power" will not save Taiwan or us.
China is probably overreaching. Their demographics do not bode well for their future.
As far as boycotts are concerned, we managed to get along well enough during COVID and all of its disruptions and lockdowns. They need the money.
So how well did those sanctions against Russia work? Oh, that's right. Their ruble is doing just fine. Meanwhile, Germany's economy is on the verge of collapse, the US dollar is losing its status as the world currency, and our inflation is nearing 10%. Maybe you want to rethink what you *know* about how powerful the US is economically.
She was talking about China refusing to sell us their manufactured goods. China would be the one imposing sanctions on us. We would find a way around that, just like Russia has found a way around the boycotts.
I envy you your rosy vision of the US as it currently is. We are not the country we were before WWII. That country could survive this. This country cannot.
Actually, interestingly, though of course I'm outspokenly opposed to globalism and to this stupid war in Ukraine or at least to our helping Ukraine militarily... the dollar is very strong right now. It's virtually at parity with the British pound (which used to be worth $1.80), ditto with the Euro which used to be worth $1.25 or so and as of today (Monday) is worth $0.96. That's huge.
It's changed since I ordered some needlework from England then, and that was about a three weeks ago.
A British pound today buys $1.07.
On 9/11/22, it bought $1.17
Definitely trending down.
Some good points, but the Dollar is not losing its status as the world currency, at least not yet. It has risen dramatically during the conflict because everyone knows we can defend ourselves. Germany's economy is collapsing due to Angela Merkel's disastrous energiewende policy.
China has twice the size of our Navy and is building the equivalent of the British Royal Navy every year. They will surround each of our carrier groups with massive numbers of their own battleships and then say "I dare you!"
The fact that you said battleships means you know very little about naval operations lol.
China doesn't have even a single operational aircraft carrier. The numbers don't matter as much as their capabilities. When was the last time China's navy won a battle?
And what does that have to do with our support of Ukraine? The numbers didn't matter much in Ukraine.
After seeing what is happening to Russia in Ukraine China's military leaders may be thinking twice about attacking Taiwan with a navy that has never been battle tested. They don't want their first battle to be against the US Navy.
No, China does have aircraft carriers now. Look up the Shandong and the Fujian. Not sure if they're totally operational yet, though. Give them a year or two and they will be.
In addition, they have several retired Soviet carriers such as the Minsk, to study. Not sure why the Russians thought it was a great idea to give this tech to China, but I guess they needed the cash.
How many planes can they launch and land on their carriers in a day? And how well armed would they be?
China's Navy has never seen combat.
I don't disagree. China has had no wartime experience since their border skirmish with Vietnam back in 1979. During two weeks of fighting, China lost around 7,000 troops, plus another 10,000 wounded (estimates based on various sources, see wikipedia). A very expensive campaign.
When they entered Korea in 1950, it cost them an estimated 400,000 soldiers (the US lost a total of 52,000).
They seem willing to just sacrifice as many people as possible to advance their goals. The thing is, today's China is not the same as 1950 China. It's a nation of "one-child" families, and people in their 20s are not all that willing to self-sacrifice; they don't even want to raise children which is causing a massive population implosion. So, we'll see.
China is not going to attack the United States.
Nobody is. The US is the only country in the world with enough transportation capabilities to project real power across the globe. The two oceans at our coasts are effectively our main defense.
"attack" comes in many forms. some rob you with a six gun. some with a fountain pen.. Michael; Shellenberger says it best. China makes almost 100% of our "green energy" ( solar panels and wind machine parts). most of our medicines.. and well just about everything.. cheap labor has its risks
They don't need to. We are attacking each other.
They don't have to. All they have to do is cut off our supply chain. And then they'll attack us. Our reliance on China has been a disaster in the making since Clinton and Bush brought them into the global trade network.
No, they're just going to build up their military power to the point where we have to obey them.
Granted, no crystal ball. But we're not gonna be invaded by China.
Taiwan may be another story, and You may be right we won't have the arms to prevent it. ICBW, but I'm still of the opinion that if China really, REALLY wants Taiwan, they'll get it in the end.
One thing, as has been "said" elsewhere, China is watching all this. Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine was. So this may delay the (inevitable?) attack.
Taiwan will have to really up its game to make the cost of an invasion too high for China. Biden's remarks (we will defend China) don't encourage them to make those investments.
Sorry, but I don't believe Biden's ideas have much sway in Taiwan, one way or the other. They know the situation they're in.
That's not even to mention that the Biden *admin* says Biden is wrong and we won't defend 'em.
Japan won't stand for an invasion of Taiwan, nor will the U.S., regardless the utterings of the senile dementia leadership and his handlers.
For its part, Taiwan would fight hard. Although, their military is not as prepared as it was 40 years ago, when the World War Two generation was still in charge. But they still have universal draft, advanced weaponry, and 70 years to prepare for invasion. They also have PhD scientists and nuclear reactors and as far back as the 1980s, it was rumored they have nuclear bombs in pieces, waiting to be assembled in time of national emergency. Even if not true, such rumors have a deterrent effect.
But if the Communists do move on Taiwan, it would likely escalate quickly into a regional war and, eventually, World War Three. Trump was pretty resolute on this topic; he literally told Xi he would bomb Beijing if they invaded Taiwan. Biden, who knows what if anything is in his brain at this point. God help us.
Like most-a the MAGA crowd, it all comes down to Trump and Biden.
I can't recall who I just read that said that it was the *NAVAL* arena that would make the difference. That the U.S. would need a strong *NAVY.* I dunno that it has one, ever since China developed the hypersonic missal.
ICBW, but I think that if China puts 1.4 BILLION people to the problem, they just may succeed. You think the U.S. and Japan can actually win a war against them? I ask what that's based on?
See if You can leave Trump outta it. I doubt it, but thought I'd ask.
If Trump were president today, Ukraine would not have been invaded, and China would not be threatening Taiwan.
Why? Because Trump would say "If you invade Taiwan, I'll halt all trade". Obviously that didn't stop the Russians, but it sure would screw China. And China is Russia's financial backer.
You don't have any idea what would-a happened. Or, to put it another way, I don't trust Your crystal ball as much as You do. Sorry.
Crystal ball??? Then tell me. How many invasions happened during Trump's reign?
Answer (so you won't have to look it up): zero.
Yeah. And that allows You to see what *would-a* happened? Answer (so You don't hafta look it up): Nup. Dream on, because that's the only way You can look into Your crystal ball.
No, we could not win a war against China. They have something far more important than weapons or people. They have the foundation of our supply chain. If Trump got one thing right, it was even in a flimsy way trying to move some production back here. (I didn't have to mention Trump, but I just wanted to needle you.)
Haha! Needle me all Ya want. I agree that China will likely wage an economic war. Hafta see..
The enemy of our enemy is our friend. We help our friends.
Yeah, that's worked out SO well in the past.
Sometimes the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.
Sometimes our enemy is only "our enemy" because we decreed it so. That seems to particularly be true of Russia. Some Americans have never accepted that the Cold War ended.
"We have always been at war with Eastasia."
Celia M
Wake up. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is completely unjustified.
Naw, You're wrong on this one, Ma'am.
*Russia* decreed it was our enemy. All that crap about the Orange Revolution may be true, I dunno. But that's a pretty lame excuse for Russia invading Ukraine now, AFAIK.
Yeah, 10,000+ ethnic Russian’s slain after a CIA and EU backed coup overturned a fair election in 2014.
Just mere “crap.” Never mind the trigger point for most countries entering both world wars was like a handful of people dying
You literally sound that dumb regurgitating the western media.
Russel Campbell
A handful? Are you a Nazi? You win the prize for stupidest comment yet. 6 million dead Jews is not a handful and the war began after Czechoslovakia, Poland and France were invaded.
Hey Terence, when the fuck did I refer to the holocaust as a "handful" of people?
You win the award of most made up shit.
If You think that justifies Russia's INVASION of a INDEPENDENT COUNTRY...
Okay fine. I don't, obviously.
We started a 20 year war across multiple countries over 5000 people of our own citizens dying. All of the same people that started/kept us in a war for 20 years are now telling you Russia is just supposed to sit back and watch his people get slain so NATO can expand their footprint. That’s absolute insanity.
Ukraine stopped being an independent nation when they went along with the coup in 2014.
We went into the war against Afghanistan within months of the attack on *our own soil.*
My understanding is that Ukraine wasn't gonna be inducted into NATO, prior to this invasion. ICBW on that tho, so there is that.
I'm not excusing it.
Maureen, if you do not understand the price of appeasement of vicious dictators, I suggest you take some time and view the Kien Burns series on the Holocaust. Europe appeased Hitler on 1938, for reasons similar to your arguments here. Six years later, 50 million people were dead, 6 million of my people among them. You also might want to view the photographs and video of towns liberated from Russian occupation: thousands of cilivians with their hands tied and a bullet to their heads.
Sorry about your tax burden, Maureen. But Europeans would trade places with you any time.
Perhaps you forgot
Germans invaded Russia and slaughtered everyone in their invasion path - a little info you missed in your demonization of the Russians in the war. (NOT justifying ANY of the horrors committed). However Russia lost 25 million people so we could claim victory
Maybe you should take a look at how the Ukrainians are targeting and killing Russian speaking Ukrainians using very similar German tactics of marking those families houses with a sign, for the special units to come clean out. Don’t moralize
WW II is irrelevant to this discussion. Why not talk about when the Swedes, the Lithuanians and the Poles all invaded Ukraine centuries ago? Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and cases of torture and murder of civilians are coming forth in large numbers. Your defense of Russian (really Putin’s) behavior is really weak. Russia is the largest country in the world, perhaps the most endowed with natural resources, brilliant people - it should be a light for the world in every way. Instead, it is cursed by a long history of terrible leaders, murderers and thieves, of which Putin is just one more. Sad, yes. Defensible, nyet.
I'm not sure how you can say that. We're being drawn into this war with the justification that this exactly like WWII, only Putin is Hitler and Russia is Germany. You hear that ad nauseam. Otherwise, what is the point of defending one tiny random corrupt country from another larger corrupt country?
Are you suggesting we should not have engaged in WW II against Germany because it was one random country against another (well, several countries in that case) and didn't touch our shores? Should we not have challenged Japan in WW II as they took over Southeast Asia and with eyes on Australia and New Zealand?
The world is a tough place, whether we like it or not. The point of defending "one tiny random corrupt country" (like the U.S. is not corrupt!) against another, Russia, which has invaded and ruled many of its neighbors over the last century, is so a regional war does not become a global war.
I just got back from the Baltic states. You see Ukranian flags everywhere. They know and will freely tell you that if the Ukrainians can't stop the Russians, they know they will be next.
I am suggesting that *everyone* draws World War II into the discussion to defend our so-called intervention (which is more accurately termed "interference") into Ukraine, so you can't suggest it is *not* relevant if someone reminds you of the Russian experience during World War II. It's a matter of consistency.
And World War II is an interesting subject that we mythologize. Here are two articles from Michael Tracy. https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-fairy-tale-version-of-world-war and https://mtracey.substack.com/p/yes-americans-overwhelmingly-opposed.
They are enlightening.
It sounds like you're looking for some kind of moral equivalence: it happened to the Russians when Germany invaded 70 years ago so they have a right to act out today. Is that it?
You've completely neglected what Russia has consistently done to its neighbors over the last century, including the Holodomor when they starved 4m Ukranians because the communist experiment in agriculture under Stalin was an abject failure. Exactly what do you propose, Lillia? Should we consign Europe over to Putin? I sense you don't like war, with which I agree, but what would you do? Wringing your hands is not a coherent strategy.
You obviously didn't read the articles. *Every war*--and I mean *every war*--since World War II has been in full or part justified because (or sold to the American people with the accusation that) "we didn't intervene soon enough" in World War II. And if we don't "intervene," it will become *Just Like* World War II. X will plow across Y, killing all these innocent people in his path.
Every war, every single stinking one, no matter what other rationale there was. Wether we were fighting to stop "commies" or fighting to stop "terrorists." Whether we were directly involved or fighting a "proxy" war. Every single one.
You know the one thing they have all had in common? They were clusterf--ks. We sacrificed lives and money and found ourselves in a quagmire ending up worse off by every metric than when we started with the world just a touch less stable for our machinations.
Explain to me, using small words, why I shouldn't believe that pattern will hold.
The other reason I know you didn't read the articles is you didn't contradict that our entry into World War II may have hastened the demise of the Jews in the concentration camps. In other words, the Jews were Hitler's hostages, perhaps not well treated, but living. Only after we got in the war did "extermination" and "liquidation" become his theme. It's the law of unintended consequences. And it's ironclad. It's not that I don't think World War II might be the one war that was worth getting into. I just think this one is nothing remotely like World War II and we need to stay the hell out.
Yes, war is hell. What would the alternative have been? Peace and love? Left to their own devices, the Soviets murdered some 40 million of their own citizens. And no, we didn't intervene. Mao is estimated to have killed/starved a similar number. And no, we didn't intervene. In both cases we really couldn't, and they were internal disasters to those countries. But when you cross borders and subjugate free people, the game changes. You haven't answered my question: what would YOU do? You're still wringing your hands, but people in positions of responsibility have to act. How bizarre of you to suggest that the U.S. triggered the killing of the Jews in Hitler's concentration camps because we finally intervened to support Great Britain and Europe more broadly. You should travel abroad or at least talk to people who have lived under difficult regimes. It will help you appreciate how horrible people can be, and that some things are worth fighting for.
Bullshit.
Putin's not a dictator, no matter how much the West screams that he is. We might not like the electoral system in Russia (although the US played a big part in creating it) but Putin is still subject to it and can be voted out if he gets unpopular.
As for appeasement of vicious dictators - you know the US was funding Europe and Germany during WW2 right? You know they took hundreds of Nazi scientists and gave them a home in the US federal organizations? You know the US has a long history of turning a blind eye to the human rights violations of various leaders of various countries as long as it is in their interest, right? Take Saddam, who was funded to fight the Iranians in 80s because they had the poor taste to overthrow the dictator the US / UK installed on them. Didn't seem to have much of a problem with him then did we? Or Saudi, which has a significantly worse human rights record than Russia. Currently we're enabling them to commit genocide in Yemen.
As for this conflict between Russia Ukraine, I don't trust anything coming out the MSM, Russia or Ukraine. They're all lying. My question is, what does it have to do with us? Don't start with your moralizing, as we have no morals. What is our interest in prolonging this conflict? How does it benefit us? Do we want Europe to bankrupt and deindustrialize itself? And a strong Russia / China marriage?
Thank you, everything you said are truths no one wants to acknowledge, including what's coming out of the MSM (and Common Sense, which is so often MSM adjacent).
Running against Putin in an election is a great way to get poisoned. Putin is a dictator as much as Kim Jong Un is (North Korea also has elections after all).
The US interest is in Russia finding it very, very difficult to conquer territory to their west. If conquest is easy for Putin, he's just going to keep doing it.
This sounds like the same argument used to fight a war in Vietnam. "Stopping the spread of communism" worked out well.
The difference is no boots on the ground in Ukraine. If anything this is more like arming the Taliban when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, except hopefully Zelenskyy isn't the next Osama Bin Laden.
Our involvement in Vietnam started with no boots on the ground. Most conflicts start with no boots on the ground and then escalate. If Biden and/or NATO decides to move troops into Ukraine, would your position change? There is zero talk of trying to deescalate this conflict. The only option presented by our media is supplying more weapons and more money to Ukraine.
Our involvement in Afghanistan also started with no boots on the ground. Granted, 9/11 likely changed the plan for Afghanistan but most did not see us being there for 20+ years at a cost of trillions of dollars.
Poppycock. The main opposition is the Communist Party. They're all still alive and kicking and standing in elections. Even Navalny, was still alive the last time I checked. Whom I presume you are referring to, he's not popular in Russia, so he doesn't win any of his elections. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109765/attitude-toward-activity-of-alexei-navalny-russia/
Putin has been in power for 20 odd years give or take. If he was so interested in conquest, don't you think we would have seen signs of it before now?
Again why does the US care about what Putin does in Europe?
Navalny alternates between exile and being thrown in prison; he's treated by the Kremlin the way the CCP treats the Dalai Lama.
Putin started with Chechnya, then Georgia, then Crimea, and now hes come for the rest of Ukraine. The signs have been there all along.
The US cares because 1) Sooner or later Russian expansion will run into American allied states (e.g. Finland), and because 2) EU countries are much better for the US economy than Russian-style countries (with no rules against IP theft and massive state-sponsored hacking farms, for example). So the US has a vested interest in not seeing Putin roll tanks through half of Europe in his dream of rebuilding the Iron Curtain.
Better to nip conquest in the bud than let it snowball, as we saw with Germany in the 1930s.
No, most Europeans do not want to emulate our levels of crime, poverty, disfunction and poor public education. By the way, lower income earners in most European countries, especially Scandinavia, pay much more tax than our low earners do.
congrats. I think you win the Godwin today
I just got back from Hungary. no one begged me for asylum or to get in my suitcase.
Countries sharing borders with Russia sure do keep begging to join NATO though.
You think that only because the media tells you they are. I haven't heard many rumblings lately. And Belarus and Georgia aren't, and along with Ukraine, they are the ones that matter.
I am beginning to think miles is a troll here to spread misinformation. He said above that Hokkaido, Japan is controlled by Russia. Absolute nonsense.
https://japan-forward.com/threats-begin-as-major-politician-claims-hokkaido-belongs-to-russia/
Yes, I find a *Japanese* publication written in *English* very convincing.
If only you could bring an ounce of that same skepticism to Kremlin propaganda
The Baltic states begged to join and it worked, Finland and Sweden both want in; it's too late for Georgia as they already got conquered in 2008, and Belarus is content being a vassal state controlled by the Kremlin.
Ukraine used to be controlled by a Kremlin puppet government, but the post-2014 government is much more into asserting their independence, which is why Putin invaded Crimea. Ever since then, Ukraine has wanted to join NATO because they knew it was a matter of when, not if, Putin came for Kiev.
You obviously did not read the article.
Thanks but Ken Burns is not on my list of people to pay attention to.
And I already know a thing or two about the holocaust and the war on the eastern front.
Ah yes, back to the well of comparing [insert opponent of neoliberalism] to Hitler.
You could save everyone time by just typing “Regurgitating All Western Propaganda Talking Points” next time 🤣🤣
Putin is not Hitler. This is not the pre-World War II. This is a fight over Ukraine joining NATO so the US is right on Russia's border, simple as that. Our leaders caused this problem and now they're feeding the beast at our expense by waging a proxy war. And it does us no good to sink our economy and leave ourselves vulnerable trying to save one corrupt regime from another.
You must be related to Charles Lindberg and Father Coughlin.
Ah, yes, the old don't address the point, just call the other person a Nazi/anti-Semite/whatever-ist-ite-phobic routine.
Absolutely correct
So is Finland next for Vlad?
I think Finland today would make mincemeat of Russia in a conventional encounter.
I would say not as long as they remain neutral, but it depends on how much Europe crumbles this winter with a shortage of natural gas and our economy crumbles because it can't stand the strain of even a proxy war. If Putin thinks he could pull it off, and Finland has already made noises about joining NATO, or so the media says, who knows. That was always the risk of cajoling Zelensky into not settling with Russia. If Russia sees that it has a chance at more with little risk, why not? Same thing with China and Taiwan and the Middle East and Israel. If they decide the US wolf is just a chihuahua in throwing shadows on the wall, then really there's nothing in their way.
Again, things no one thought through.
I don't think Finland has much to worry about, given Russia's (non) performance militarily in Ukraine. It might be more the other way around.
All the more reason to make the Ukraine invasion as painful as possible for Russia; so that they don't come to see invading neighbours as a "low risk" venture.
Well, as you can tell, it's also very painful for us. The price of oil is killing our economy and Germany's economy is teetering, and where it goes, the rest of the world soon follows. We raised rates to drive down inflation, but we'll have to lower rates when the recession deepens into depression, which will once again feed inflation. Hunger pangs tend to trump the imperial ambitions of our leaders. And have you wondered what happens if Putin just decides f--k it all and hits the button? You people live in a fairy land. Again, you can't have both: Putin is so insane and so dastardly that we must involve him in a quagmire in Ukraine to "teach him a lesson" (as if the US is in any position to take the moral high ground in "lesson teaching") and Putin is not so insane and so dastardly to take the rest of the world with him by resorting to nuclear war. I wonder how your brains work. And I see you still haven't read the article, or this would be a much different conversation.
If Putin hits the button, he dies. The man is many things, but suicidal isn't one of them. He doesn't want to see Moscow turned into a smoking crater by nuclear war.
Europe is about to pay for handing their energy policy over to Greta Thunberg, but the US and Canada will be mostly insulated from that. There will be a small recession in North America but nothing severe enough to drop interest rates back down and restart inflation.
Russia is feeling more pain than the West, by far. 80,000 dead Russian soldiers and counting, and calling in the draft will hurt their economy massively. Have you seen how many Russians are fleeing the country?
Also, we didn't "involve" Putin in Ukraine. He chose to invade; we're just helping make it a quagmire instead of an easy win.
Again and again, Lillia Gajewski, you pretend to be deaf to what Putin says about Ukraine not being a real state and needed to be eliminated as such. You keep not only repeating Russian propaganda at nauseam, but you repeat only what suits your “narrative”, the endless red herring about poor Russia having to attack to fend off the big bad NATO. After seven months of unprovoked agression, you have learned nothing.
In his eyes, it's not a real state. Ukraine as been a part of Russia for as long as Russia has existed. It did not "win" its independence from Russia. It was *granted* its independence from Russia. They *voted* to leave and Russia *let* them leave because they wanted Ukraine to act as a buffer between NATO aligned Europe and them. Think of Puerto Rico suddenly deciding, nope, we want independence and then aligning with Russia and Russia putting nukes there. That's the equivalent.
Ukraine was briefly independent after WWI, snd, in fact, negotiated a peace with Germany before Russia signed Brest-Litovsk. The Baltics and Finland were the first countries to recognize the USSR - and they were among the first to be invaded less than twenty years later. Russia coordinated with Germany in a division of Poland. After WWII, somemof the baltic nations fought insurgencies for nearly a decade. If they werent in NATO now, does anyone think they woild be indepedent still? How other countries behave isnt the spur here - Russia has constant atheistic territorial ambitions. Oh yeah - they tried to take Iran after WWII, and why were the British in Afghanistan long ago? To keep Russia out.
I agree that’s the backstory. Ukraine chose, Russia agreed, they become a buffer. Though like threesomes, such bargains rarely have happy endings?
Not really, but backstories have relevance.
So does this: https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia
Ukraine got its independence when the USSR collapsed, and ever since then Ukraine has been expecting Russia to eventually reinvade. As it turns out, they were right, so it makes sense they wanted NATO membership as an insurance policy.
Putin invaded Crimea before NATO membership was on the table, so you have the cause and effect backwards.
Putin isn't invading because Ukraine wants to join NATO; Ukraine wants to join NATO because of Putin.
Russia invaded Crimea e days after the start of the Maidan Revolution, a coup of an alerted president supported by the Obama administration. Lilia is right, our hands are not clean in this and we have used Ukraine's admission to NATO, and the EU, as a club.
Supported, yes. Instigated, no. That uprising was already underway; it was a grassroots revolution that the US helped along.
Ukraine sees NATO and the EU as a shield, not a club.
I am neither Russian nor a Putin sympathizer but I would bet Putin sees NATO as a club.
Putin also doesn't see Ukraine as a legitimate country; he sees it as the rightful property of the Kremlin.
Ukraine was an original member of the USSR a hundred years ago.
After the collapse of the USSR Ukraine declared itself neutral and had alliances with both Russia and European organizations. There is a significant portion of Ukraine that is ethnic Russian and speaks Russian; 17.8% as of 2022 so that percentage would have been higher if the Crimea were included. But Ukraine's history as Russian is much deeper than that dating to around 900 AD as part of the original Rus. So I suppose Putin is not wrong if he thinks of Ukraine as Russian.
Putin came to power in Russia late 1999. He served as President from then until 2008, was Prime Minister from 2008 until 2012, and President from.2012 until the present. If he does not see Ukraine as a legitimate country he waited a long time to do anything about it. Instead he invaded Crimea two days after a "revolution" aided by the US. He moved into Ukraine on the heels of talk about Ukraine joining NATO but also the EU. I have read that the EU connection would have been very damaging to the Russian economy which is not well-diversified.
So Russia had and has far greater interests in Ukraine than does the US nevertheless we have meddled therein since the Clinton administration. People have opined on here today about acting to ensure stable markets (a la colonislism), to engage in a proxy war to see how our weapons hold up (Military-Industrial Complex crack), and to thwart a global takeover by Putin (hysteria), among others. None of which are justified.
Lastly, all of my statements are my beliefs based on what I have read, in other words my opinion. As I am sure are yours.
You have that completely back-ass-ward.
Try this: https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia
Crimea was invaded well before any discussions of Ukraine joining NATO were underway, so actually it's you who has it back-ass-wards.
I can tell you didn't read the article. The US has been using Ukraine as a pawn.
Ukraine is pretty wily as realpolitik goes; they're not easily used as pawns by anybody.
It's very frustrating that people don't see this.
Sorry, I thought you had commented on something else. Yes, it is very, very frustrating.
Putin's grievances are small potatoes compared to what happened to Germany in the Treaty of Versailles; if appeasement didn't work then it's sure as shit not going to work now.
Yes, Putin's grievances are small, his economy is small, his military is small . . . how exactly do you expect him to take over Europe? Which is literally the whole justification for our defense of a highly corrupt and autocratic nation. You guys have to pick one: either (a) Russia is this evil superpower headed by a crazed maniac with his hand on the button of nearly 7000 nukes so we need to tread very, very carefully or (b) Russia is a decayed power that Ukraine can easily beat with a few weapons that we've supplied them but Putin is sane enough not to take that personally. You all are living in a Hollywood script where not thinking through the plot doesn't matter because you control the ending. Well, we *don't* control the ending.
“ Which is literally the whole justification for our defense of a highly corrupt and autocratic nation”
You should begin with a course or basic geography. And then basic history.
No one thinks Putin can overrun all of Europe with his conscript army.
Putin is bombing peaceful cities. Are they perfect cities ? No. Are they blameless and free of corruption ? No. But they are peaceful cities full of women and children. If NATO doesn’t stand up against this, NATO has no purpose.
Putin doesn't want West Germany, only East Germany. His aspiration is to rebuild the Iron Curtain, which would mean roughly 1/2 of Europe gets conquered by the time he's done.
Russia is a decayed power headed by a wannabe conqueror; if he can roll over Ukraine as easily as he rolled over Georgia, then it's a matter of when, not if, he goes after Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states.
If, on the other hand, he gets quagmired in Ukraine, then eventually he'll have to do what the US did in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan: declare victory and GTFO.
Please supply some evidence that any of that is true.
Chechnya and Georgia, for starters. Plus Hokkaido, and Belarus is now fully controlled by Russia.
Also, I have been to Hokkaido. Not a Russian to be seen. Now I can't take anything you say seriously because the territories that are disputed are islands north of Hokkaido and not on mainland Japan.
Japan considers those islands part of the Hokkaido Prefecture, so referring to the disputed territory as Hokkaido is an acceptable shorthand.
Think of it like saying Honolulu is in Hawaii, vs. saying it's in "the Hawaiian Islands", since it's technically on Oahu and not on the island of Hawaii. Sure, one term is technically more precise than the other, but that's some seriously pedantic hairsplitting
If you said "Because you said Honolulu is in Hawaii now I can't take anything you say seriously", I'd have a hard time taking anything YOU say seriously. Which, come to think of it, I do. Pedant.
Nice try, but your statement was not, "some islands North and part of the prefecture of Hokkaido", which are NOT the Island of Hokkaido. Russia has had them since after WWII, but Japan signed a treaty giving up all claim to those islands, so comparing them to Crimea is idiotic. Japan was offered two of them by Russia but refused. You compare apples to oranges, which misleads people who don't know exactly what's happened there In an attempt to smear Russia further. I must have hit a nerve if you are now resorting to ad hominem. Now I am absolutely certain you are a Troll.
You are not what I meant by sources. Can you share links to any legitimate publication besides MSM backing your claim?
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-new-ukraine-essay-reflects-imperial-ambitions/
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/features/analysis-putins-imperial-ambitions-and-ukraines-300-year-road-statehood
https://central.asia-news.com/en_GB/articles/cnmi_ca/features/2022/06/17/feature-02
Every one of those publications has an agenda and are controlled by MSM. I consider not one of them reliable sources. Something independent would be acceptable
Well, according to you and this article, he's not "easily" rolling over them. So we have nothing to worry about, no?
And he's not the only one "quagmired" in Ukraine. You forgot that we are too. Isn't that funny how that happens? The US population gets poorer, the military industrial complex and the politicians it owns get richer, and all this goes on and on and on, and just when we got out of Afghanistan. Funny coincidence that.
If Ukraine had received no support, the rolling over would have gone much easier. Russia is only quagmired because of the support Ukraine has been receiving ever since Putin invaded Crimea.
The US is not quagmired in Ukraine; the US isn't losing thousands of soldiers trying to hold territory in another country. The military industrial complex is getting a nice payday, but it's chump change compared to how much a full-scale war in Eastern Europe would cost, if Putin's ambitions to remake the Iron Curtain were allowed to snowball the way Hitler's Third Reich ambitions did.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Baloney. How does that explain Putin's invasion of Chechnya? How about his invasion of Georgia? Thousands killed and tortured. 12 oligarchs have mysteriously committed suicide in the last year. People who disagree with the regime are jailed or worse.
As I said above, Ukraine isn't "sinking our economy". It has been widely reported that COVID entitlement fraud exceeded $46 billion. Think of all the other government handouts, medicaid payments for example. What do you think the aggregate annual amount of fraud is in our system here? Our problem isn't Ukraine, but our problems will grow if we don't keep Putin in his box.
I negligently failed to add Putin's assassination of enemies in western countries with Novichok, among other methods.
It's also cheaper to fight a contained proxy war than appease an expansionist and let things snowball.
The people bitching that the Ukraine war is too costly for the US are a classic example of pennywise/poundfoolish.
Yup, and the case study for US approved UAV’s came included.
True. As some commentators have said here, it's kind of a bargain as wars go.
But NATO is already on Russia’s border, via the Baltic states and Poland.
Putin himself explained that, under his let’s call it highly idiosyncratic history, Ukraine is not and never was a real country with any existence separate from Russia and its destiny was therefore to return to the fold. And he alone decided when and whether to invade Ukraine.
Talk about NATO etc. as justifications for invading a sovereign state is to fall for political spin and disinformation.
Funny thing is, Ukraine is the original "Rus," and could make the same claim that Rus unification necessitates that Ukraine conquer Russia in order to return its people to the natural order of things. Russia should be careful what it wishes for, it may get it in the form of Ukraine being the conqueror!
Putin's invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO policies, as you pointed out. It's about Putin's vision of him as Czar Vladimir of the United Rus, and alsso conquering a nation rich in resources that he can use, sell, and exploit.
Haver you looked at a map recently? Poland is *not* on Russia's border. And the Baltic states are ridiculously small as to be not a threat with a minuscule connecting border. Meanwhile, you can easily hit Moscow from Ukraine. In fact, Russia has been invaded most every time from that direction. You need to turn off the propagandists, like Common Sense, and go read some history and look at some maps. Russia is a well-armed has-been superpower who sees another internally decaying superpower that is well known for its "regime change as distraction wars" eying a very long stretch of land right along its border. The US itself has started wars and invaded countries over less.
And Ukraine has significant resources. And ports.
The US can hit Moscow from anywhere at any time. They don't need the Ukraine for that.
Yes, but it's much easier to mess around with Russia if you're right on their border. You can also mess around in Belarus and Georgia. It's also good for getting Russia to "attack" the US/NATO so you can justify marching troops in. Don't be naive. This is all about putting the US on Russia's doorstep, and we're willing to kill a lot of Ukrainians to do it.
No it isn't. This isn't the1940s. The US doesn't want to have anything to do with Russia. The only thing the US is interested in is Russia not firing off nukes. I will say it again. The US can "mess around" with Russia from wherever it wants to. It just doesn't want to. There is no strategic interest in doing so.
Then why did we sabotage the peace deal after meddling in Ukraine's politics? We *definitely* care about Russia, and even if you can't see it, they can.
https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia
Money? MIC? It definitely isn't because we need a border with Russia for any reason.
It doesn't matter. Russia doesn't want us on their border and given our machinations, who can blame them. We've turned Ukraine into a war zone over a country you seem to think we have no interest in.
Sure, there are so many forces today that want nothing more than to “hit Moscow from Ukraine”, obviously the bloodthirsty NATO being first. You should be on Russian TV, Lillia Gajewski. Or maybe you are, who knows.
Lillian is not wrong about this; over 16,000 ethnic Russians living on the Ukrainian border have been killed and photos released claiming Russia killed Ukranians. The propaganda making Russia look like a monster has been absolutely stunning. Dig deeper; this is more complicated and nuanced than you know.
“Nuanced”? And where did you get your “nuanced” information? Because only Russian media fabricated this kind of news. It’s telling you don’t bother to quote your sources for such lies.
Warhawk 101: Accuse a person making reasonable arguments of being a traitor. How well does that work in real debates I wonder?
I've been around a while. People like you are very tiresome.
What debate are you talking about? For at least the last eight months you have endlessly repeated the same ridiculous arguments about poor little Russia being pushed around by the nasty NATO, being completely oblivious to the fact that Putin himself has changed his tune, claiming that this is nothing less than about the “Russian world” - equivalent to the Nazi “lebensraum”.
Somebody who plays the same looney tunes when the conversation has completely changed is not interested in debates, but in spreading propaganda, in your case straight from Russia.
I'm impressed that you've been following my comments for last eight months. I mean, even I have more of a life than that.
Trolls from the Russian troll farms or their American domestic equivalents are hard to miss.
Takes one to know one, I suppose.
You forget Kaliningrad which is wedged between Poland and Lithuania and is the base for Russia’s Baltic fleet.
It was conceivable if the West had acquiesced in Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, that his next “request” would have been a Russian corridor to connect Kaliningrad to the rest of Russia.
You are free to ignore Putin’s clearly expressed revanchist views about Tsarist Russia’s lost territories. Those closer to the action do not have that same luxury.
Was going to comment on Kaliningrad bordering Poland - thanks for checking the map!
Latvia and Estonia’s population are also both about a quarter Russian, so sounds like a good reason to ‘liberate’ them as well.
Russia definitely wants a direct connection to Kaliningrad, and Poland, the Baltics and even Belarus are well aware of the fact. It was a "gift" to Russia for their role in WW II. Of course, without Allied aid, Russia probably would've collapsed, but who's counting?
Ukranians remember the Holodomor. You may not know anything about that, but they do. They will fight because they know what's at stake.
And Russians remember every invasion that came through Ukraine because they were dumb enough not to control that landmass. They also know what is at stake. Also, the Ukraine is roughly a third ethnic Russian and the Ukrainian government, particularly under Zelensky and his predecessor, have been carrying out a near purge of them. This isn't simple. Both sides have every reason to keep going to the bitter end and even to drag Europe into it.
Russia is an empire of many peoples who are not Russians, most of whom are doing the fighting now for the "motherland". There was no danger of an invasion of Russia from anywhere, but Russia has routinely invaded its neighbors to the West. Ukraine is a third ethnic Russian - so what? Americans and Canadians are ethnically related as well, but we respect each other's sovereignty. Same with Mexico. Your argument sound like what Hitler used to justify the invasion of the Sudetenland.
In fact, despite all of the grand talk about Communist internationalism, Russia always regarded the other Warsaw Pact nations as colonies.
Completely correct - people who don’t think that is true - should educate themselves on the topic
They said the same thing about Hitler, only re: the Kaiser. “Heir Hitler is an honorable man.” Neville Chamberlain.
Yeah, we know, every critic of this war is Neville Chamberlain and the only two options are nuclear brinkmanship or obsequious appeasement. https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-fairy-tale-version-of-world-war?utm_medium=reader2
You read Michael Tracy too? I should get off this comments thread and go read that one. I started, it looks enlightening, but I haven't found 44 minutes.
No one ever said Putin was honorable. I just said he's not Hitler and Russia is not post-World War I Germany.
How many more people does he need to kill to reach Hitler status? Or is there another metric we should know about?
Another important consideration is the massive decrease in the national oil reserve. One source has it at a 30% decrease. That is massive, the worst since 1984. The left is all-in on the green new deal. RINOs and DEMS are all-in on wars and wearing blue and gold ribbons while homicide in the U.S. is out of control and our schools are spending far too much on DEI instead of reading and math skills. Check out these sources below. University of Michigan and Ohio State University spend nearly 30 million annually on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion staff.
DEI University of Michigan is $15.5 million annually:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve#:~:text=US%20Crude%20Oil%20in%20the%20Strategic%20Petroleum%20Reserve%20Stocks%20is,31.19%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.
DEI Spending Ohio State $13.4 million:
https://bamindex.org/mn00003-ohio-state-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-gender-representation-2021/
National Oil Reserve shows 31% decrease in supply: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve#:~:text=US%20Crude%20Oil%20in%20the%20Strategic%20Petroleum%20Reserve%20Stocks%20is,31.19%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.
The strategic petroleum inventory decline was carefully crafted by examining Biden’s approval rating. No other analysis was required, just like most of this administrations actions. Restocking should not be difficult. All the government has to do is provide a floor price for domestic production that is above the marginal cost to produce a barrel. Oh wait, we can’t do that because a key constituency will throw a fit!
The depletion of the strategic oil reserve is purely political - to lower gas prices before the Midterm elections - and puts the country at risk. It's terrible policy, but who's surprised?
Exactly!
The left means to crash the American economy.
Examples, please, NCMaureen. What evidence do you have that the left "means to crash the American economy?" From the time of Reagan, income disparity between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us has grown more quickly under Republican administrations that under Democrats. Republican administrations talk the talk of fiscal responsibility when a Democrat occupies the White House but when a Republican moves in, they spend like drunken sailors, cut taxes for the rich, and explode the debt and deficit. No one in Congress has fought harder for working class Americans than have two of the most liberal Senators -- Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Trump promised to revive coal mining in America. Thank goodness he failed -- coal mining jobs declined under his watch although his EPA made it easier for coal mines to pollute our rivers and atmosphere. He promised that winning a trade war with China would be easy. His tariffs hurt American manufacturers and consumers and achieved nothing. More jobs were created in the last 18 months of the Obama administration than in the first 18 months of Trump. I could go on, NCMaureen. Facts are stubborn things. Show me some that substantiate your allegations.
Crippling the American energy industry.
Promoting a fantasy that we can convert to wind and solar anytime soon. Subsidizing special interest industries.
Since Biden has been in office, Americans have lost 7.8 TRILLION DOLLARS in assets. We are in a recession. How much did the stock market go up under Trump?
Crime—-shops closing down because nothing is done about the shoplifters. Lefty DAs put them back on the street.
Growing government—87,000 new IRS agents!
A half trillion to pay off student loans for people making as much as $250,000/yr. This won’t be a one-time thing. Landscapers without a college education will be paying taxes to pay the loan for a kid with a worthless degree.
You need to try a little harder to base your allegations on facts, NCMaureen.
"Crippling the American energy industry." Fact: The Biden administration issued 34% more permits to drill on federal land in his first year in office than did Trump. The American fossil fuel giants have garnered record profits over the past year, and their stocks have been among the strongest sectors in the market.
" . . . a fanasy that we can convert to wind and solar anytime soon." In fact, it's been established that using natural gas as a "bridge" to clean renewable energy sources was a bill of goods promoted by the fossil fuel giants whom you seem to believe without question. Transitioning directly from coal to renewables is now cheaper, faster, and safer than by replacing coal with natural gas.
https://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2019/05/gasBridgeMyth_web-FINAL.pdf
Donald Trump came to office in the middle of the longest bull stock market in history. The market continued to rise as it had been doing, but he failed to sustain the growth witnessed under Obama. Then along came Covid . . .
"How does Trump compare to Obama in the stock market? We share the facts on cumulative and annualized performance between Trump and Obama in the stock market. Cumulatively across the S&P 500, Trump is at 67.26% compared to Obama at 166.28% a difference of -99.02%. On the NASDAQ, Trump is at 137.56% compared to Obama at 262.26% a difference of -124.70%. Finally, on the DOW Jones, Trump is at 56.00% compared to Obama at 138.28% a difference of -82.28%."
https://www.factsarefirst.com/comparison/donald-trump/barack-obama
The crime "crisis" has been largely misrepresented by the right. The rise is homicides began in 2019 under Trump and has continued. Other areas of violent crime have remained flat or declined. Smash and grab incidents in Los Angeles peaked in December of 2021 and drew lots of media attention. The incidents have declined since and robberies, burglaries, and theft are down from 2019. The right makes much of the post-Covid crime wave, blaming it on lax policing and immigrants. They deliberately ignore the explosion of gun sales during the pandemic and the impact that's had on the exploding homicide rate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lapd-warn-crime-wave-data-show-theft-robberies-rcna9236
After years of Republican tax breaks for the rich and cuts to the IRS budget, huge corporations and the wealthiest plutocrats had little to worry about from an IRS audit. The number of audits dropped precipitously and the amount of uncollected taxes exploded, reaching an estimated $600 billion. The long overdue corrective action by the Biden administration will improve customer service, speed up refunds to working taxpayers, and direct the attention of auditors where it belongs -- on tax evading plutocrats and corporations. Long overdue.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/1093380881/on-tax-day-the-treasury-department-urges-for-more-funding-to-the-irs
I share your discomfort with the legislation to address the student loan problem. But the funds required to address the problem will not impact low-wage workers like landscapers. With child tax credits for two children and a dependent spouse, a worker making $25,000 a year would pay no federal income tax. Sadly, the same can be said for some huge multinational corporations until Biden instituted a $15% minimum.
You can actually argue drill permits? Ridiculous. Filled your tank lately? Gas was $1.99 in Jan 2021.
Landscapers can make 100k a year easily. Yes, they will pay taxes.
Tax breaks for the “rich”, because guess who pays most of the taxes? Should we give tax breaks to the poor, who you described as already paying no taxes? How many employees do poor people have?
During the Obama administration the stock market started in the dumper and had only one way to go, Up. During the Trump administration an already high stock market went even higher. Until Biden, who has wiped out at least 2 yrs of gains.
If you are unwilling to believe lectures given at Hillsdale by people who I bet you didn’t even check to see who they were, why should I believe you when npr and nbc are your sources?
NC Maureen: You charged, as many on the right do, that Biden "crippled the American energy industry." As I showed, that's patently false. The increase in the price of gas was a global phenomenon driven by post-Covid demand sharply increasing, a bottleneck in the refining industry due to hurricane damage, and the war in Ukraine which disrupted global energy markets. The price has come down steadily since the peak in June. America is addicted to cheap gas; that's one of the reasons we have a climate crisis -- our wanton, wasteful consumption of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel companies have reported record profits and their stocks have gained handsomely under Biden.
Poor people might actually make enough to pay some income taxes if the minimum wage had been passed as Biden proposed. You seem not to care about the working poor; a typical attitude held by conservatives.
I notice you had nothing to say about my corrective comment about the IRS. Mendacious Republicans, including Senator Grassley of Iowa allege that small business owners will have IRS agents with assault rifles knocking at their door. Instead, the beefed up IRS can get after more tax cheaters like Trump. Small business owners and working Americans have nothing to worry about and should applaud these efforts to collect what's due from the plutocrats.
You're quite inconsistent in your attacks. You allege that the billionaires are out to destroy capitalism on the one hand, then you turn around and defend the breaks that reduce their tax obligation. You can't have it both ways.
The increase in the stock market and housing market, under either party, is directly tied to the expansion of the money supply (M2). When M2 increases, so does everything that benefits from cheap debt. I saw a stat that for every $1 the Fed created under "covid relief," the S&P increased by $.92. This isn't a Dem/GOP issue, it's a factor of cheap money and deficit spending. It's also the reason the Fed is slow to raise rates and actually start quantitative tightening. They know the stock market and housing market will crash if they raise rates to where they need to be to get inflation under control. Both parties got us into this mess.
I can't believe Americans still believe and argue that the two parties are much different. Neither cares about middle class. Neither cares about slowing the concentration of wealth. Neither cares about the issues everyday Americans face beyond how we can be further exploited for financial gain at the top.
Look at the banking industry and the military industrial complex. Those two industries benefit regardless of which party is in office. That's who is pulling the strings and running the country. One could argue Big Pharma is a close third.
Every time I hear people quote MSM in an argument about which party is better just confirms that their strategy is working: keep us divided and distracted. That way we won't turn our focus to the real problem: a federal government that has sold out the American people.
Well said, R Rundio. The two party system in America has devolved into Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum or Tweedle Dumb to account for the MAGA element of the Republican Party. The Fed tried to raise rates under Trump, but he raised hell, and the Fed backed off. Then Covid hit and the Fed and Congress propped the economy up once again with trillions of funny money. The inflationary result was entirely predictable. The easy money had been "invested" in the stock market and the housing bubble, both of which will come tumbling down now. The American economy has been a zero sum game since Lester Thurow published his book The Zero-sum Society in 1980. Now we have the Modern Monetary Theorists trying to persuade us that governments can just print more money and keep economies afloat forever. If only it were that easy.
I agree. We were constantly told how strong our economy and stock market were; yet, the Fed could never raise rates back up to where they were. Our economy (both domestic and global) is reliant on cheap debt. It's probably coming down. Hopefully since most countries are in the same boat, we make it through ok.
I'd be interested to know who those nefarious Leftists are, too, so we can keep them from crashing the economy and such. But I have no idea who they are, either.
Here is a paragraph from an editorial in today’s WSJ from some native Alaskans who have been working to have oil drilling on their lands for decades. Do you think the environmentalists they refer to are conservatives or leftists—
“ We are tired of outside groups trying to turn this project and every other oil and gas project in our region into the poster child for a global movement away from fossil fuels. This is more than a political oil debate for us; it’s about access to land we were promised many years ago. Without projects like Willow and their crucial economic benefits, many of my neighbors would be forced to leave the lands they and their ancestors have inhabited for thousands of years.…”
Leftists sacrificing even indigenous people on the altar of climate change
The fed, the fbi, the Biden admin, the self professed socialists in key roles (Bernie, AOC). Lena Khan. Gavin Newsome. Larry Fink.
The list is very long, but if you’re asking a genuine question, it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion.
At the end though the simplest explanation —- that they’re a bunch of mediocre politicos without any useful ideas, who haven never built and know only how to divide and defame.
"it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion."
What make you assume I haven't done this "thinking" to reach my own conclusion? I have done so all my life. My conclusion stands:
"The Left" is not trying to "crash the economy" to start the New World Order or any other fantasy dreamed up by QAnon goobers. Period.
I agree with your lineup of mediocre politicians, but you forgot the dimwits from the Republican side of the aisle. Boebert? Gaetz? Greene? Trump and his pals?
There it is: “what about trump”
Trump did not preside over the highest inflation in 40 years, or over two years of historic learning losses among school children. He’s also completely IRRELEVANT to the point of the thread, which is leftist idiocy.
The point of this thread may be "leftist idiocy," but it's perfectly fair to make the comparison because you're pretending that only the Left is lousy at governing. Plenty of idiocy on all sides to go around. I didn't list Trump to bash or single him out, only as one of the looney tune on the Right.
As for "he didn't preside over" high inflation and learnings losses, he would have had he been re-elected. Markets and social force are more powerful than any President.
This is strange but I find myself agreeing with you. I despise both parties and wish there was a strong middle of the road party but that wish is a fantasy.
I wish there was a strong centrist party, too, LP. One more interested in rebuilding our electric grid, filling potholes, rewriting our broken immigration policy, and upholding the Constitution rather than staging Shouty Theater minute after hour after day. I don't see that happening, alas.
Good to have agreement now and again, though! Best to you.
The left is awful at governing. Don't you have any family? Don't you have any children you care about???
Two years of closed schools, that means nothing to you, you just want to talk about Trump??
For the third and final time, I listed Trump along with a half-dozen other examples of lame politicians in Rightyland. In contrast, your obsession with the Left is tiresome, so I'm out.
If you let down the shields of your ideology and actually looked at history with honesty you would find the information necessary to explain all of this. Go back to Woodrow Wilson and the beginning of progressivism, the whole design was evolution not revolution. He understood that it would take an infiltration onto the media and the educational system and, as he stated, "three generations" to own the minds of the electorate. You have been trained to see everything that falls outside the scope of the media narrative as a conspiracy. You have been trained to hate those that disagree with you so that you will consider their opinions invalid. Closing your mind right now is EXACTLY what they want you to do. The simple thing to remember is that in this Republic, our elected representatives are there to do OUR bidding, no their own. Why would there be career politicians if the system was working the way it was designed? How do our representatives go to Washington as paupers and emerge as millionaires? Because they are representing the corporate interests that pay for them to get elected. If they keep us at odds, it stays this way. Considering the viewpoints of those you disagree with is imperative right now if we ever stand a chance of having government "FOR THE PEOPLE" again.
I like your comment, Michael, but I no longer celebrate the Wilson Presidency. Wilson, a Dixiecrat at heart, re-segregated the Civil Service and showed "Birth of a Nation" with its celebration of the KKK in the White House. I'd rather plant the birth of progressivism and the first trust-busting attacks on the gilded age with Teddy Roosevelt. But then I squirm at his efforts to launch American imperialism, the Treaty of Portsmouth, and other regrettable moves. But thanks for your cogent and potent comment.
You're responding to the wrong person with this.
There is a series of lectures on Hillsdale.edu from 2021. They concern the Great Reset as defined by the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. Suggest you listen. If you think the world’s billionaires convene in Davos once a year just to party, think again. These people hold all the power and they envision a very different world than the one we live in. And they are exerting it. They use climate change as the justification. Here’s an example of their power—ESG. Bullying companies to “voluntarily” comply with their standards, or they won’t get loans. They won’t get financial services. Talent will be dissuaded from working for them. This is a kind of fascism.
Schwab’s vision is to destroy capitalism as we know it. He wrote a book about it. So, yes, there is a plan, and he has powerful billionaires signing on.
NCMaureen: It's clear that "capitalism as we know it" has failed in a number of respects. Without adequate regulation, capitalism inevitably falls into brutal boom and bust cycles that exacerbate the unequal distribution of personal income resulting in the rich getting richer while the middle class stagnates or slips into poverty.
Any economic system will ensure prosperity and well-being only if it's compatible with the resources available to it from planet earth. Inadequately regulated capitalism is depleting our resources and natural systems faster than they can be replenished.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/were-gobbling-earths-resources-unsustainable-rate
We're on the road to environmental implosion. The only acceptable kind of growth is sustainable growth. Our politics are still driven by the Bill Clinton mantra: "It's the economy, stupid!" We on the road to self destruction until and unless we accept that "It's the ECOLOGY, stupid!" and adjust our lifestyles to that imperative. Hillsdale College serves the interests of the billionaires that fund its extensive ties to far-right interests.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/12/hillsdale-college-trump-pence-218362/
It is certainly not true that 'capitalism as we know it' has failed.
Compare it to any other economic model and you'll find it's really the only sane option.
Kstils, you cited only part of my statement, leaving out the important qualifier, "in a number of respects." I stand by the statement and everything that follows about the need for adequate regulation to preclude the otherwise inevitable boom and bust cycles of capitalism and its relentless need for "growth" on a finite planet that has led us down a path leading to environmental implosion. That's hardly a "sane" option.
One of the Hillsdales lectures that you won’t listen describes the environmental costs of the green movement. Guess how much earth has to be mined to get enough rare earth minerals to build one Tesla battery?
NCMaureen: I'm well aware of the limited supplies of lithium, cobalt, rare earths, and other essential components of our hi-tech world. I've read an entire book on the subject, Michael Klare's The Race for What's Left. But I'm also aware that scientists at MIT have developed battery technology based on three abundant and inexpensive materials -- aluminum, sulphur, and salt.
https://news.mit.edu/2022/aluminum-sulfur-battery-0824
But we already know that we cannot go on pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, so alternative energy sources must be found if we hope to sustain a lifestyle as energy dependent as ours.
And I know enough about the Hillsdale lectures to view them with skepticism. The fossil fuel companies take their cues from the tobacco industry. When the surgeon general tied tobacco use to cancer, Big Tobacco initiated a propaganda war to counter the science. They established "research" centers at universities and bought off scientists who sold their integrity by claiming to have experimental evidence that tobacco is safe. Now, after countless needless deaths, we know it was all a scam. Big Oil is doing the same thing today, using outlets like Hilldale sow doubt and confusion about climate science and alternative energy.
As for the allegation about environmental costs of producing lithium-ion batteries, they are dubious at best.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/environment-verify/electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint/536-92531ae7-c68f-4eaa-a24d-6c04c4b9ff95
Transport and Environment, an NGO that studies the environmental impact of transportation systems compared the impacts of gas-powered and electric vehicles. They found:
Electric vehicles require far less in the way of mined metals.
It is anticipated that the amount of lithium, cobalt, and nickel to produce a car battery will drop significantly over the next decade, and by 2035 it is expected that over a fifth of the lithium and 65% of the cobalt and nickel will come from recycling. The full study can be found at:
https://electrek.co/2021/03/01/mining-electric-car-batteries-hundreds-of-times-better-than-petrol-car-emission-cycles/
So, instead of technology we know to be harmful (internal combustion engines powered by gas) let us hope that the technology to produce electric vehicles powered by clean energy can be perfected. Otherwise, we're in deep doo-doo.
Do I think there is a concerted conspiracy of leftists out to crush our economy? No. But in their collective ignorance of basic science, math, and physics, coupled with their utterly deluded “moral” system can only produce failed governance that inevitably leads to very bad economic results.
If you want some specifics: unhinged hysterical desire to “kill fossil fuels”, incoherent monetary policy that will depress equity values while doing nothing whatsoever for inflation that’s constantly fed by more printed money giveaways.
Lastly, the left’s slavish allegiance to the people who have hurt more American kids than any external force ever has: the teachers unions. So long as the left is in the pocket of the teachers unions, they will continue to have a direct political incentive to perpetuate the system that condemn our kids to a life of ignorance, and sheepish fearful obedience to The Scary Moral Panic du jour.
Oh, please Zoya, it's the right, deluded by the merchants of doubt in the fossil fuel industries, that faithfully ignores science, math, and physics in their rejection of climate science and the looming crisis that's devastating growing portions of our planet. What's unhinged about acknowledging the rapidly expanding desertification, the rising sea levels and melting glaciers, the ever-increasing acreage lost each year to wildfires, the advent of the sixth great extinction event, the only such calamity sparked by a single species -- us?
As for inflation and monetary policy: At least 6 of the 7 Fed governing board were appointed or reappointed by Trump. Inflation is a global problem that's been brewing for decades as we propped up our economy with near-zero interest rates and Congress pumped yet more funny money into the system by way of deficit spending and irresponsible tax cuts. Both parties are to blame, but it's the Republicans who consistently talk the talk of fiscal responsibility until they're in control, then they go about blowing up the debt and deficits even faster than do the Democrats.
You have no evidence that the current Fed actions will do "nothing whatsoever for inflation." It's likely that these actions will spark at least a mild recession and slow the economy down. With reduced demand, prices will stabilize. It will be painful, and working people will suffer the most. The Fed's policies are not liberal and most of the Board members are solid Republicans.
But you're right about this: interest rate hikes won't solve prolonged droughts, floods, or huge losses from hurricanes, tornadoes, and other impacts from our changing climate. Food crises are emerging around the world and will only get worse, exacerbated further by the war in Ukraine. Ignoring climate science and supporting further fossil use will only accelerate the inflationary and famine inducing impacts of climate change.
As for our schools. We have a nationwide shortage of qualified school teachers. Why anyone would choose to invest in a master's degree so they can teach in our under funded schools and subject themselves to the abuse of bigoted, hostile parents is beyond me. The right's efforts to privatize and dumb down our schools is succeeding and it's a tragedy.
I respectfully disagree with this notion. As a liberal, a crashed economy would hurt me as much as it hurts righties. Why would I want that for myself or you? Makes no sense. I know most of Bari's commentators are addicted to the notion that the Evil Commie Librul Leftie McLeft Woke Groomers want to burn down everything. That notion is as absurb as Lefty McGroomer claiming that right wingers want to set up death camps for progressives. You don't, do you?
The problem is that there are people on the Left--specifically the people who are ideologically guiding the Left--who have stated plainly that this is their aim. If it were a few random crazies, then yeah, it would be absurd. But it isn't a few crazies. It's the people who have long been on the cutting edge of Leftist thought. What they think now, the rest of the Left will think sooner or later.
So who, exactly, have stated “plainly” by name?
Being “on the left” is not being “a liberal”.
Dennis Prager of PragerU recently did a video calling out the differences between progressives and liberals. They're not even close to the same.
I agree completely, Steven, but too many here do not note that crucial difference. I like to point that out whenever I can.
How are progressives, progressive? Please be specific.
So what do you think is the cause of their destroying the economy, border, energy supply, foriegn policy, military etc,?
I cant decide if it's ignorance or arrogance (I don't know and I don't care). However. It all seems too intentional to be anything but intentional.
Exactly. If they were doing it on purpose, what would they do differently?
A crashed economy is not going to hurt the powerful on the left. Amazon, Meta, Apple will be fine. Oh, some of the smaller players on the left, you perhaps, would be hurt, but they don’t care about you. They want power and control. You know the saying…gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.
These “they” who have these nefarious goals, who are they by name?
The only real lefties I know are pitchers.
Great Depression II will harm everyone, even Big Corporate, so profoundly that I honestly don't believe anyone is trying to bring that about. Democrats can't organize a one-car funeral, so to think they're orchestrating the vast conspiracy needed to destroy our economy makes me smile. Republicans are too invested in screaming "commie libtard pedo groomer One World Order!!!" to bother crashing anything.
I hope I'm right, because I do not want to live through GDII.
Enjoy yourself then. Why worry?
I'm not worried. I consider this "lefties gonna crash the economy because New World Order" as QAnon fantasy best ignored.
At your own peril.
They aren’t doing it on purpose. They cluelessly think they are saving the planet. You aren’t very astute.
you are not very astute if you think they are "clueless"
And you are not very polite. You can disagree with someone without insulting them.
We have exchanged some bitter words on this BBS but on the whole the debates are civil, except when we debate a hard core leftist. It seems to me the left can't help themselves. They almost always devolve into insults, like you just did.
When they lack ideas and good arguments, they insult. It's all they've got.
Yup. This all plays right into the hands of the Leftists who WANT our country to collapse. Their aim is to build their utopia on its ashes. They always think that the next time is the time it will work.
Like I have always said, the left is Hell bent on destroying our democracy. They have this sick notion that out of the ashes of our of our wonderful system of government the workers will arise shoulder to shoulder and lead us into a Communist paradise. No matter what history tells these idiots, communism is a failed system. It never has worked and it never will. If the Chinese don't get to us first, the green initiative and the burning of our cities by the left led rioters will.
How did an article on the war in Ukraine slide so quickly into unrelated and utterly fatuous comments about the "left" being "Hell bent on destroying our democracy?" Can you give me a specific example, LonesomePolecat?
Which party is passing laws to empower state legislatures to overrule the will of the voters? Which party has passed laws impeding the right to vote in more than twenty states? Which party is replete with angry members who still believe, without any evidence and contrary to countless audits, court rulings, and investigations, that the 2020 Presidential election was fraudulent? Such attacks on our democratic processes and the results of our elections undermine faith in our system and lay the groundwork for a more successful effort to deny the will of the voters in the next Presidential election.
It's the far right that's shown its colors -- its love for orange-faced autocrats and bullies; its yearning for a tough guy to rule with an iron hand. It's been the forces on the left that have fought for civil rights for African Americans, women, and other groups that have not enjoyed full participation and representation in our society. Get over it.
I'm sorry it took so long to address your post. I answer posts like yours about twice a month and it gets tiring.
I will address you post and try to answer all of your concerns on the following conditions:
1. when answering me you will not change the subject. I try to use facts and history to address subjects in all of my posts. When confronted with something they can't refute, they will say something like, "Well what about Trump?" When the subject is say, Biden. That is what I mean about a subject change. They can't answer what I have presented so they divert.
2. No matter how angry you get with me through frustration, you do not call me names and I promise I won't do that to you. IOW, let's keep this civil.
I find that people on the left usually can't do the above two things. They get real nasty.
What do you say? Can you do this?
My comment began with an objection to changing the subject, Lonesome. The article was about the war in Ukraine and you and others turned it into an attack on the left and baseless allegations that the threat to our democracy comes from the left. I offered specific, factual evidence of attacks on our democratic infrastructure that have come from the right and that are supported and encouraged by Donald Trump. I don't need admonitions about civil discourse. I post under my real name, I don't hide behind a mask or handle, and for that I've been threated with violence by right-wing extremists. I await your "factual" response to my comment. Have a good day.
1) Which specific state legislatures have restricted voting and how?
2) Have you seen the denials of the 2016 election? I'll help you with this Matt Orfalea mash up via Matt Taibbi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoMfIkz7v6s
This is America, people can believe that an election has issues...seems like that was the prevailing thought when "orange man" won. That doesn't mean our Republic is under attack.
3) Contrast African American wages and unemployment between the Trump presidency and the Biden presidency.
4) Name a Democrat led city that has actually made life better in the last 2 years for minority residents....or any residents. What was the number of homeless across American in 2018 as compared to 2022.
I could go on. Instead of throwing out platitudes with ZERO facts as Lonesome has duly noted, answer the above and then we'll have a conversation.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2022
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021
The rest of your points are off subject. I'll say only that those who protested the 2016 election results did so on the basis of the un-democratic features of our electoral system. Trump lost the popular vote but "won" the election because the Electoral College empowers smaller states and disadvantages larger ones, resulting in such denials of the will of the people. The Senate, which confirms Supreme Court appointments is similarly undemocratic by its very makeup. Combine those impediments to majority rule with gerrymandering in the House, and we are left with a crisis of legitimacy in the courts, congress, and, occasionally, the Presidency. No Democratically-controlled state legislature following the 2016 election tried to pass laws making it harder to vote or empowering themselves to overrule the will of the voters.
AHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one Richard!
So the electoral college should be abolished because only those living in large urban areas should get a vote? Who cares about the less dense states or the rural states! That's EXACTLY the point! One vote per citizen. It shouldn't matter where you live. I have this inkling that if it were the other way around, you'd want to keep the electoral college. Notice NO ONE in the 2016 rejection even mentioned the electoral college....it was all RUSSIAN COLLUSION!
Lonesome was right....you're incapable of arguing on fact....all conjecture. My sincere apologies to Lonesome for attempting this!
I tried to engage him but he did what I asked him not to do change the subject and never give me a direct answer.
I have two simple rules. Don't change the subject and don't call me names.
He couldn't do it.
It is impossible to engage these leftists in civil discourse.
I would have asked the same questions you just did and that is to be specific ie he said some states restrict voting. Which states and what is the wording of their "restrictive" bills?
Remember when they said asking for a photo id was keeping people from voting? Well if that is the case, why do all of the Democrat state conventions and their national convention ask for a photo id to gain entrance? Isn't that restricting people from participating in the conventions.
To get on an airplane you have to show a photo id. Isn't that restricting access to travel?
I could go on and on. For example, if the Dems aren't at all racists and are such wonderful protectors of minorities why did they elect Robert Byrd senate majority leader and minority leader multiple times? Robert Byrd was a Grand Cyclopes in the KKK. He filibustered the 1964 civil right bill, the longest filibuster in senate history. It to 20 Rep votes to help the Dems break the filibuster. You will never hear that little fact out of the mouths of these defenders of the minorities.
Lying, hypocrites all!!!!
The left are a bunch of lying distorting jerks.
I hear ya!
And who but you, Lonesome, is calling people names -- "Lying, (sic) hypocrites all!!! The left are a bunch of lying distorting jerks." I declare this conversation over because you evade every civil effort I've made to urge you to respond to my original comment and now you have succumbed to sweeping generalizations and crude name calling. Good day.
You and NCMaureen are the ones who changed the subject, Lonesome and my first comment made note of that. I never called you any name other than your handle. You're being evasive and laying down ground rules that I've never broken in the first place and I refuse to accede to your silliness. When you're ready to discuss the challenges I offered, I'm ready at any time. Now MadaboutMD is changing the subject yet again, asking me to respond to matters I never raised except on very obvious one -- the fact that Republican state legislatures have passed laws making it harder to vote and/or empowering state legislatures to reverse the will of the voters. Any informed citizen should know about these outrageous challenges to our democracy:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2022
I was responding to Sean and MCMareen. I asked you for civil discourse and you turned me down. I don't think you responded with facts. You responded with generalities. I will give you actual historical facts that I can back up refuting your post but I guess it will never be. You sound pretty angry which is typical of my experiences with the left.
Please show me any part of my commentary that is outside the bounds of civility. I responded to you with facts -- state legislatures across the country have passed new laws restricting voting, access to polls, and bills that empower legislatures to overturn the will of the voters. You have not refuted those statements because they're factually true. I could have added that far-right MAGA groups have harassed, intimidated, and threatened election officials from both parties in several key states. Please show me evidence of a similar nature supporting your contention that the left threatens democracy. I don't expect a reply because you're already making excuses for withdrawing from the exchange. Am I angry? You bet I am. I'm angry with anyone who threatens our democratic electoral process. Does that prevent me from participating in a civil discussion? Of course not. Anyone who's not concerned about the threats to our democracy and angry with those who are willing to participate in seditious acts to undermine it is either an enemy of democracy or too deluded to acknowledge the threat. Show me your hand, Lonesome, or acknowledge that it's time to fold 'em.
I showed you the conditions in which I would debate you and you changed the subject.
Accede to my conditions which aren't strenuous and I will debate you.
You sound angry to me. It seems to me most people on the left are.
And to have the rubble absorbed into a one world government. Which will mean Chinese rule for us in the US.
If we don't stop the Chinese now, in a generation we will all be speaking Mandrin. China is bent on world domination.
I am actually far more concerned about Chinese Imperialism, because their soft power on the West Coast has grown at a frightening rate, and they've already shown they can feed our federal authorities crafty lies to get them to wreck our country on the inside.
That's a far bigger concern than Ukraine.
I agree.
I majored in Chinese and it's a pretty cool language, actually. If we all could speak and read Chinese, it might make us all a bit more civilized and cultured.
But the Communist regime of China is another beast altogether. Monsters.
I can't agree with you. The history if China swims in blood, poverty and famine.
China has had all those things... but it has also had centuries of peace and prosperity that fostered economic expansion and stunning cultural achievements.
I'm not some shill for China; but having studied the history, culture, and language (and having lived in Taiwan), I do have a deep appreciation for it.
So does the history of Western Europe and the United States until WWII.
The subject was China not the West. Instead of addressing the subject you do what the left often does. Instead addressing the subject, they change the subject and that change is often ant western democracies.
Does the West have a bloody history. Of course, they do but we have changed. China hasn't and to prove this please gave me a list of all the death camps that now exist in the Western Democracies.
I did address the subject of this thread, which is not just China, but China and the West. You argued that "the history of China swims in blood, poverty, and famine." I pointed out that ours did, too, until WWII changed that.
We're both right. China and the West had the same bloody history, but the world wars changed our trajectory for the better and, I hope, forever.
Thanks to Mao, China's trajectory became worse, with death and "re-education" camps for any minority that annoys its party leadership. China's brutality continues to this day.
For the record, Western democracy is the best invention for the care of human needs and spirit since fire and the wheel.
but civilized blood, poverty and famine with a "cool" language. I do think we would be better off understanding it but that will not happn
Are you an isolationist NCMaureen? Do you believe America and Americans should live in a bubble unperturbed about the rise of Russia or China or any other warring nation with expansionist designs? If you’re not, then your questions are moot.
Regardless, if you do believe you won’t eventually be affected by what happens in the rest of the world, that America should just take care of its own, I’d suggest you’re sadly mistaken.
Americans should always take care of its own first. always. even on the plane they tell you. if the oxygen mask drops. do your own mask FIRST before helping others. good advice. track the funds we are sending into a black hole. yes that is a burden on Americans..
Contained proxy wars to nip expansion in the bud are cheaper in the long run than appeasing and letting things snowball.
WWII would have been much cheaper if the annexation of Austria had been opposed, rather than kicking the can down the road until the Panzer tanks rolled into Poland.
Please see another comment I posted that responds to this.
No thanks. Reading your clueless comment that asked what America gets out of this - an end to Russian imperialism - was enough.
Perhaps your posts would be taken more seriously if you offered up something other than insulting a person you disagree with.