Kansas Crimson

I struggle to understand how anyone can look at the Ukraine conflict and NOT consider the issue of imperialism

We have really made some progress my friends.

I for one, would just like to say that I feel like this thread has really blossomed since its start 2 plus years ago. So much growth and insight....we know A Perfect Circle's version of this this thread's namesake song sucks ass when compared to the original by Fear.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 3:22 pm I struggle to understand how anyone can look at the Ukraine conflict and NOT consider the issue of imperialism

You keep selectively zooming in and out. When you are stuck in a corner on a specific issue, you make the macro argument. And vice versa.

NOBODY has said that there is not an "issue of imperialism" to consider in the Ukraine "conflict" writ large.

But even that word "conflict" again (like your use of "forced submission" as if Russia could possibly be a victim of something here) betrays the rotten core of the apple you keep wanting to compare to hand grenades: the word "conflict" just DOES let Russia off the hook for what it is doing - which is, to be perfectly clear, waging a conventional war on Ukraine's civilians that is not REMOTELY justified in scope by any objectively-true evidence of Ukraine's or our or anyone else's actions.

And you do this over and over again, in enough different ways, to support the conclusion that you're aligned with Putin's talking points. Even if you say you aren't - and even if (which I believe) you do not WANT to be.

It's hard to believe we are on year 4 or 5 (consecutive) of Q doing this on a daily basis in one of these threads.

That is some serious dedication.

that’s one word for it

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 6:01 pm that’s one word for it

LOL

U.S. only nation on U.N. security council to veto a ceasefire in Gaza…again

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:54 am U.S. only nation on U.N. security council to veto a ceasefire in Gaza…again

This UN Security Council?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ty_Council

like nato. the united nations is a farce.

we are the only one that matters. we are paying for it. we are funding it. we are supporting it. we are doing most of the heavy lifting. what italy and germany and great britian and ireland and sweden and ice land etc etc etc thinks should happen is meaningless.

what canada thinks is meaningless.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:15 pm like nato. the united nations is a farce.

we are the only one that matters. we are paying for it. we are funding it. we are supporting it. we are doing most of the heavy lifting. what italy and germany and great britian and ireland and sweden and ice land etc etc etc thinks should happen is meaningless.

what canada thinks is meaningless.

It does not surprise me that you have lost, down the Foxhole, the plot on what "funding" NATO actually means.

those countries are sitting at the kiddie table. nobody pays no mind to the kiddie table.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:40 pm those countries are sitting at the kiddie table. nobody pays no mind to the kiddie table.

I have never been under the impression that we have been meaningfully constrained by NATO.

I think people on the right are being sold a bill of goods, when Trump & Pals tell you that we should withdraw from NATO or not honor our own NATO commitments, on the basis of alleged "NATO funding" delinquencies.

if you can contain your bloviating to around 10 thousand words. can you explain it to us.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:47 pm if you can contain your bloviating to around 10 thousand words. can you explain it to us.

Sure.

Trump & Pals speak as if NATO is some sort of organized crime-type protection racket, where less powerful nations pay up in exchange for our protection of them, and where we should stop providing protection services where the customer is not current on its payment obligations to us/NATO.

This is not how it works (and I suppose it's not surprising that Trump puts this, incorrectly, in organized crime terms).

It is true that the 31 NATO member nations commit, among other things, to spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense generally - these are not payments to NATO, or to the United States or any other country. Something like half of member nations met that general spending level last year (up from just three nations a decade ago).

In my opinion, the benefits we get from the alliance are well worth being a disproportionate spender. In my opinion, the failure of some NATO nations to meet their spending commitments should not in any way affect our adherence to our commitments, and certainly not steer us away from continued membership in NATO.

in theory "all for one, one for all" sounds utopian. but we all know what the reality is.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 1:11 pm in theory "all for one, one for all" sounds utopian. but we all know what the reality is.

I agree with that.

But my opinion is that - even in the most cynical view - NATO is excellent for the United States, even where the United States does not strictly need it for defense, and where the United States is a disproportionate spender on defense.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:22 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:15 pm like nato. the united nations is a farce.

we are the only one that matters. we are paying for it. we are funding it. we are supporting it. we are doing most of the heavy lifting. what italy and germany and great britian and ireland and sweden and ice land etc etc etc thinks should happen is meaningless.

what canada thinks is meaningless.

It does not surprise me that you have lost, down the Foxhole, the plot on what "funding" NATO actually means.

It does not surprise me that simpleton MICH thinks Great Britain, Ireland, and Sweden are NATO members.

i was just barfing out the first teet suppling coattail riding worthless countries that came to mind. to make my point.

they know we will protect them when the going gets tough. so they don't have to spend on their military.

they can spend their money on cool stuff like infrastructure and climate change and solving the homeless problem and taking care of their veterans and border security. the important stuff to them.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:29 pm they know we will protect them when the going gets tough. so they don't have to spend on their military.

they can spend their money on cool stuff like infrastructure and climate change and solving the homeless problem and taking care of their veterans and border security. the important stuff to them.

Like I said, in my opinion it's still an excellent deal for us. I do not think we would much enjoy the economic reality of what things would look like here in the case there is a World War 3 in Europe.