Politics Is it time for the west to assemble an army and kick Putin out of Ukraine?

[Elixir]

I think there is. Both China and Russia are aggressive and are constantly looking for an opening to grab land from their neighbors.

They ARE "their neighbors". Doesn't mean the US has two clear-cut options, each eliminating the other and assuring opposite outcomes.

Today's political map is a utopia for autocratic tyrants.

I agree - it does seem uniquely configured to allow despots free reign.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think there is. Both China and Russia are aggressive and are constantly looking for an opening to grab land from their neighbors.

They ARE "their neighbors". Doesn't mean the US has two clear-cut options, each eliminating the other and assuring opposite outcomes.

What? Do please tell us about all the other options?

 

[DrZoidberg]

A Swedish soldier friend of mine was from today stationed in Norway to take his place at the NATO high command, just as if Sweden was a full member.

He explained how it works. It turns out that the membership system of NATO is a complete sham. USA decides unilaterally who is in or out.

What it says on the little badge is irrelevant. Protocol is irrelevant. The real power structure is informal. USA is in charge. 100%.

Power lies in USA's control of the flow of information. If they open the taps to full (which they have done for Sweden) there is nothing Turkey can do about that.

Everything NATO does is a series of one off cooperative missions that are re-negotiated each time. Countries are always able to opt out. But they all have a strong incentive to say "yes" every time since its the only way they can gain any control at all.

So basically, there's nothing Turkey can do to stop Sweden. Turkey knew it all along. The negotiations is just diplomatic theatre. Symbolic bones are being thrown. There's no way in hell Turkey is leaving NATO. So they have absolutely nothing to bargain with.

Anyhoo, Sweden was in practice a member of NATO immediately upon applying for membership. Or rather, has been members from day one of NATO's founding. Its all been theatre.

What Sweden's application really means is that the cold war is over. Putin/Russia drew a line in the sand and told Europeans to pick a side. So all countries in Europe are now declaring for the side they were always on during the cold war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would love to hear your arguments

YOU made the positive claims - support them if you can:

"If USA keeps troops out of Ukraine, then USA is able to counter Chinese aggression on Taiwan. Russia gets Ukraine. China doesn't get Taiwan.

If USA deploys enough troops in Ukraine to push Russia out, then Chinese is free to move on Taiwan. Russia doesn't get Ukraine. China gets Taiwan."

Both hypothetical outcomes are of course possible, but you have shown no causal relationship that requires that it works out exactly that way.
In fact it is a real reach to suppose the conditions wherein ANY American troops would be committed to the ground in Ukraine.
False dichotomy.

While I don't think we should deploy troops to Ukraine it would be the best thing for deterring China. The question is far more about willingness than ability--and putting boots on the ground in Ukraine would show a willingness.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, the default position is that an act is unconstitutional unless shown otherwise. Only someone who hates the 10th amendment could say the opposite.

Since thst is not how reality works, only someone who is delusional would claim otherwise.

That IS how the constitution is written.

There are many cases where one side is defaulted to unless demonstrated otherwise. The default position in a criminal trial is "innocent until proven guilty". The nature of science is that no theory is ever proven, it is either disproven or not disproven. The nature of making a claim in a debate is that the burden of proof is on the claimant to support the claim and absent said proof the claim is considered unsupported and irrelevant.

But that's all realty, much to your dismay. Once again you demonstrate your disdain for the 10th Amendment.

In reality, the status quo prevails until there is a ruling otherwise. I get that appeals to reality- based reasoning is hard for libertarians to grasp, but that is reality no matter how much you don’t like it.

The reality is that the way the 10th amendment is written, the way the government is supposed to function is that any government proposal is considered to be unconstitutional unless shown otherwise. Only someone who is illiterate would honestly claim otherwise, although many people do claim otherwise.

Some people prefer to base their arguments on the government ignoring the constitution and therefore having any power it wants. I think those people are totalitarian psychopaths.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I would love to hear your arguments

YOU made the positive claims - support them if you can:

"If USA keeps troops out of Ukraine, then USA is able to counter Chinese aggression on Taiwan. Russia gets Ukraine. China doesn't get Taiwan.

If USA deploys enough troops in Ukraine to push Russia out, then Chinese is free to move on Taiwan. Russia doesn't get Ukraine. China gets Taiwan."

Both hypothetical outcomes are of course possible, but you have shown no causal relationship that requires that it works out exactly that way.
In fact it is a real reach to suppose the conditions wherein ANY American troops would be committed to the ground in Ukraine.
False dichotomy.

While I don't think we should deploy troops to Ukraine it would be the best thing for deterring China. The question is far more about willingness than ability--and putting boots on the ground in Ukraine would show a willingness.

Why don't you think western allies should put boots on the ground in Ukraine?

 

[TSwizzle]

ffs, another $3BILLION about to be shipped out to Ukraine for aid;

As Russia’s war on Ukraine drags on, U.S. security assistance is shifting to a longer-term campaign that will likely keep more American military troops in Europe into the future, including imminent plans to announce an additional roughly $3 billion in aid to train and equip Ukrainian forces to fight for years to come, U.S. officials said.

News

Looks like we are in this for the long haul. Someone is making bank.

 

[TV and credit cards]

ffs, another $3BILLION about to be shipped out to Ukraine for aid;

As Russia’s war on Ukraine drags on, U.S. security assistance is shifting to a longer-term campaign that will likely keep more American military troops in Europe into the future, including imminent plans to announce an additional roughly $3 billion in aid to train and equip Ukrainian forces to fight for years to come, U.S. officials said.

News

Looks like we are in this for the long haul. Someone is making bank.

“Someones.” There’s hardly a congressional district in this country that doesn’t have a defense contractor in it. But if you really want to see a high concentration of them, look out your window, Californian.

 

[Patooka]

ffs, another $3BILLION about to be shipped out to Ukraine for aid;

As Russia’s war on Ukraine drags on, U.S. security assistance is shifting to a longer-term campaign that will likely keep more American military troops in Europe into the future, including imminent plans to announce an additional roughly $3 billion in aid to train and equip Ukrainian forces to fight for years to come, U.S. officials said.

News

Looks like we are in this for the long haul. Someone is making bank.

Saying "another $3 billion" is pretty dishonest, considering this is part of the bill that was signed back in May.

Also, I kinda fine if people make bank off knocking your hero's master flat on his arse. Putin is a fascist cunt and should be allowed the amount of power and influence his has.

 

[Swammerdami]

What it says on the little badge is irrelevant. Protocol is irrelevant. The real power structure is informal. USA is in charge. 100%.

I do NOT want to defend U.S. imperialism and I certainly am not happy about taking Trump's side on NATO financing, but IIRC the U.S. military contribution is somewhat larger than whichever country is in second place.

Trivia Question: The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest airforce. Who is in 2nd place?

Spoiler

The U.S. Navy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What it says on the little badge is irrelevant. Protocol is irrelevant. The real power structure is informal. USA is in charge. 100%.

I do NOT want to defend U.S. imperialism and I certainly am not happy about taking Trump's side on NATO financing, but IIRC the U.S. military contribution is somewhat larger than whichever country is in second place.

Trivia Question: The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest airforce. Who is in 2nd place?

Spoiler

The U.S. Navy.

Largest Air Forces in the World 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Harry Bosch]

What it says on the little badge is irrelevant. Protocol is irrelevant. The real power structure is informal. USA is in charge. 100%.

I do NOT want to defend U.S. imperialism and I certainly am not happy about taking Trump's side on NATO financing, but IIRC the U.S. military contribution is somewhat larger than whichever country is in second place.

Trivia Question: The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest airforce. Who is in 2nd place?

Spoiler

The U.S. Navy.

Largest Air Forces in the World 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

I'd double check the Russian Air Force numbers! I'd bet that the YTD number is a little lower!

 

[Harry Bosch]

What it says on the little badge is irrelevant. Protocol is irrelevant. The real power structure is informal. USA is in charge. 100%.

I do NOT want to defend U.S. imperialism and I certainly am not happy about taking Trump's side on NATO financing, but IIRC the U.S. military contribution is somewhat larger than whichever country is in second place.

Trivia Question: The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest airforce. Who is in 2nd place?

Spoiler

The U.S. Navy.

Well, I think that it's fair to criticize our ally's military spending. But do you really think that us spending more than our ally's is imperialism? We're not spending money in Nato trying to encourage Nato to invade other countries (Russia). We're just trying to stop Russian imperialism. Is part of it trying to preserve our ally's ability to buy our goods and trade with us. You bet. But that's not at the same level of taking another country's land and killing its civilians.

 

[Jayjay]

I think a better example of "Trump's imperialism" was his attempt at wanting to buy Greenland.

 

[Swammerdami]

I do NOT want to defend U.S. imperialism and I certainly am not happy about taking Trump's side on NATO financing, but IIRC the U.S. military contribution is somewhat larger than whichever country is in second place.

Trivia Question: The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest airforce. Who is in 2nd place?

Spoiler

The U.S. Navy.

Well, I think that it's fair to criticize our ally's military spending. But do you really think that us spending more than our ally's is imperialism? We're not spending money in Nato trying to encourage Nato to invade other countries (Russia). We're just trying to stop Russian imperialism. Is part of it trying to preserve our ally's ability to buy our goods and trade with us. You bet. But that's not at the same level of taking another country's land and killing its civilians.

If I were to complain about U.S. imperialism, I might point fingers elsewhere than at military spending.

What about the U.S. negotiating a restriction on film-making subsidies, claiming that it would restrain free trade, and thus inhibit cultural diversity, to allow countries to subsidize their domestic film-making? Subsidies inhibit diversity? Hah! The net effect is that Poles have fewer Polish movies to watch, so end up watching more Disney and other Hollywood movies.

 

[laughing dog]

The reality is that the way the 10th amendment is written, the way the government is supposed to function is that any government proposal is considered to be unconstitutional unless shown otherwise. Only someone who is illiterate would honestly claim otherwise, although many people do claim otherwise.

For some reason, you feel your opinion about what is constitutional or not and what is real or not is controlling and accurate. Whether you like it or not, if you think the US gov't is acting unconstitutionally, it is up to you to make a convincing argument in order to stop it. That is the way the world works.

[removed]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, I kinda fine if people make bank off knocking your hero's master flat on his arse. Putin is a fascist cunt and should be allowed the amount of power and influence his has.

Overall, I think it's of benefit to us to continue to arm Ukraine even if you don't consider Ukraine itself worth defending. Russia is taking a beating and that's good for us.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The reality is that the way the 10th amendment is written, the way the government is supposed to function is that any government proposal is considered to be unconstitutional unless shown otherwise. Only someone who is illiterate would honestly claim otherwise, although many people do claim otherwise.

For some reason, you feel your opinion about what is constitutional or not and what is real or not is controlling and accurate. Whether you like it or not, if you think the US gov't is acting unconstitutionally, it is up to you to make a convincing argument in order to stop it. That is the way the world works.

So I need to quote the 10th Amendment again. And you need to pretend it doesn't exist again so that you can say I didn't quote the 10th Amendment again and therefore claim I didn't make the argument again. Because if you don't look at my argument, it's not there, again.

[removed for consistency]

 

[Harry Bosch]

I do NOT want to defend U.S. imperialism and I certainly am not happy about taking Trump's side on NATO financing, but IIRC the U.S. military contribution is somewhat larger than whichever country is in second place.

Trivia Question: The U.S. Air Force is the world's largest airforce. Who is in 2nd place?

Spoiler

The U.S. Navy.

Well, I think that it's fair to criticize our ally's military spending. But do you really think that us spending more than our ally's is imperialism? We're not spending money in Nato trying to encourage Nato to invade other countries (Russia). We're just trying to stop Russian imperialism. Is part of it trying to preserve our ally's ability to buy our goods and trade with us. You bet. But that's not at the same level of taking another country's land and killing its civilians.

If I were to complain about U.S. imperialism, I might point fingers elsewhere than at military spending.

What about the U.S. negotiating a restriction on film-making subsidies, claiming that it would restrain free trade, and thus inhibit cultural diversity, to allow countries to subsidize their domestic film-making? Subsidies inhibit diversity? Hah! The net effect is that Poles have fewer Polish movies to watch, so end up watching more Disney and other Hollywood movies.

Sure, we bully countries all the time over economic issues. Most countries do if they can. It's just that the US is more powerful than most, so we bully. The US bullies Canada economically all the time. They get some dig back, but we win more often because we're larger. Not saying that is right. However, Canada has no reason to fear that we'll bomb the shit out them. A very large line should be drawn in the sand that exerting power through military force should be shunned by all countries. The US has great soft power. Soft power allows us to get what we want sometimes at a smaller price. Russia has zero or very little soft power. So when they want something, they have to send in their military which is very very expensive. However, that's their stupid ass fault. They are full of shit. No country trusts them. Including China and India. They turned all of eastern europe against them except for Serbia. Even Hungary and Turkey have no trust in Russia. Russian word is shit. Everyone knows it. And that will cost Russia greatly for generations.

a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

 

[lpetrich]

I voted against sending a Western army to Ukraine because I think that it would be a dangerous escalation. Sending weapons has worked so far, and I think that that should continue.