1289
Here are the 70 House Republicans who voted to cut off all US military aid to Ukraine
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1289 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2608 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Never thought conservatives would be in putins pocket, but here we are.
Never thought liberals would be pro-war, but here we are.
I don't think thats fair. I think the idea is that a dictatorship invading a democracy in eastern europe is something the free world can't allow to happen, same way they couldn't if Iran invaded The Netherlands, and this is why all of europe and the US are helping them defend themselves.
Not sure how you could get "pro-war" from that.
You don't think thats fair...
Have you read the first comment in this thread?
They claim the richest chunk of the political establishment of the richest country on the planet with the most roided up intelligence/military apparatus in human history is in the pocket of the arch enemy of said country and said intelligence behemoth
Compared to that every statement is resonable. Arguing nuances while ignoring the ignorance of the premise is past the borders on ridiculousness.
ah, I see what you're getting at
Russia is much less a dictatorship than USA... The 'free world' caused unimaginably more suffering, death, and injustice in the world than Russia ever has. Sending weapons in support of Kiev regime (yes, it's a regime by definition) only prolongs the suffering of people, both Ukrainian and Russian.
Russia cannot lose this war. If faced with an actual prospect of being defeated (which is not realistic in any capacity) it would employ nuclear weapons, which would be disastrous for us all! So west is really only gambling on prolonging the conflict to destabilize EU, hurt Russia's resources, and in the process destroy entire generations of Ukrainians.
The lesson to be learned from WWII is that appeasement of land-hungry countries is not a solution for long term world peace. Because of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland and Austria, Hitler learned that the world would simply let him take whatever he wanted if he bared his teeth.
Putin views the fall of the USSR with bitterness, and wants to bring the USSR back. From his prior incursions into Chechnya and Crimea, he had learned that he could take whatever territory he wanted and the world would turn a blind eye out of fear of starting a larger conflict. He had hoped that Trump would be reelected, reducing the likelihood of a united West against this offensive he had been planning for years.
So, he had plans to take Moldova after Ukraine. He expected Ukraine's inexperienced, ex-actor president to flee like Hamid Karzai when his forces made a beeline for Kyiv. Instead, Zelenskyy stood his ground, lead the defense of Ukraine, and marshalled materiel support from NATO. Ukraine is choosing to fiercely defend itself; even if pacifists who want to minimize total casualties were to get the US and NATO to cease all support for Ukraine, "allowing" it to be overrun, there would be no speedy end to the conflict. And then, even if Russia were to claim all of Ukraine, the bloodshed would not stop there, as he would continue to take former USSR member states.
Don't call people who want to let Putin profit from his warmongering "pacifists".
Pacifism is the cowardice to defend oneself.
That isn't entirely true, imho. I live by the motto "Hope for peace, but prepare for war".
The you aren't a pacifist. A pacifist considers violence and war as unjustifiable by definition.
Pacifism is an untenable position because the only way to ensure control of the actions of another is through force and domination due to a pesky thing called free will.
A pacifist is an idealist that has chosen not to contend with the reality that someone else may choose to be violent towards them. They have, through this unjustifiable position, determined that because pain is bad all violence has no justification, even in the defence of oneself. Pacifism is enabled by a core belief that all violence propagates violence.
Pacifism often limits this understanding of violence to the physical, as far as I'm aware no pacifist is against violence such as forced imprisonment of criminals.
I never did say I was a pacifist.
Yeah, best to appease countries like the US who don't officially take land, but will invade, overthrow, or fund opposition if you do not do what they say. It's funny to be seeing the grandstanding of Americans and the world coming together to moralize about Russia. Where was all this during the 20 years of Iraq? Apparently the biggest bully on the playground gets to dictate what's right.
No, you're completely right. Other countries should've denounced the US for Iraq. But the fact that that didn't happen doesn't mean Russia gets a pass here too.
Absolutely, Russia is 100% wrong for invading Ukraine and it should be denounced and countered. I just find it interesting how strongly people feel about one invasion over another.
And then you have other conflicts and genocides around the world too. From a historic geopolitical perspective, I understand why Ukraine and Russia has way more attention, and it's not like I think we should pay less attention to it. I just hope going forward we do this for other global conflicts.
As a liberal, this war has shown me that the US military and defence budget can be a force for good. It's a tool to be used by the wielder. The left can use it to help the world and maintain peace. I'd personally argue it's our duty, both ideologically and geopolitically. The US has done a lot of unsavory things to get where we are, the West overall even moreso -- it's time we gave back and made up for it.
Putin is (quite contrary to western MSM-taught propaganda) a very pragmatic and laid-back leader, moreso than most if not all of the western leaders. He was never known for making rash or risky decisions. The Russo-Ukrainian war was forced by the west, Putin never wanted it to happen, but he damn sure prepared for the eventuality.
Pragmatic? Sure. No risky decisions? Get outta here. Only reason he was elected in the first place is because he orchestrated a false flag terrorist attack.
Laid back? Craziest part of your post. Russian leaders have to be like Stalin to survive. Paranoid and ruthless. He is the furthest thing from laid back.
Any evidence for that or are you simply taking russophobic nonsense at face value?
This has to be a joke commentand no one is recognizing it. Right?
Generally speaking, if you're the invading party in a war, you were not forced into it.
Generally speaking yes but it's a nuanced thing. For example Japan was more or less forced to attack the US in WW2. US was aware of this when they cut off oil to Japan. They were essentially forcing the issue - declaring a war unofficially. They fully expected some attack from Japan at some point in the near future.
Japan's war machinery was focused in Asia - they didn't want to go to war with the West. But to keep feeding their growing industrial base they needed resources.. and all the good resources in the region were controlled by the European powers. In order to keep pushing forward in China, they needed to take Dutch/British/French territory in SE Asia. If they attacked one, they knew they would be at war with all. So they just sneak attacked all hoping that the American/European will to fight wouldn't be as strong as theirs. Just like the way they won their war against Russia at the start of the 20th century. Unfortunately for them, the US was more than willing to fight and die for control over the Pacific.
Ukraine v Russia is a bit different, though. I view it as an independence war starting in 2014 from the Euromaiden protests. Ukraine was firmly in Russian sphere - and it has been for hundreds of years. As soon as they want to pivot away from Russia with the coup in 2014, Russians come and annex Crimea. Then of course we have the slow 8 year fighting in the Donbas which eventually led to all-out war.
You're quite correct, though you left out that the West has been pushing for war since at least 2004 with the orange revolution and subsequently the 2014 illegal coup. The western orchestration and support was vital for these to occur and destabilize Ukraine. It caused a shift toward russophobic politics that sparked a civil war.
Russia cannot win this war. Even if they used nukes.
I think you know this.
Why do you think US is giving more and more military aid if Russia has no chance of winning? For example before they wouldn't give tanks - that was a red line. Then we sent tanks.
Then we wouldn't send airplanes - then we did.
Now we're sending cluster bombs and uranium ammunition,, something that's akin to using chemical weapons.
Why? The situation is getting increasingly tense. This war could last a long time but the support from the West will not last forever. And by the "West" we mean the USA. That's where overwhelming majority of the aid comes from.
Trump wins in 2024 and goodbye Ukraine ggwp. Russia just has to hold the line and eventually they'll annex Crimea + Donbas + Donetsk
And if they're lucky maybe Odessa
What exactly makes you think Russia couldn't win?
GDP.
The same reason General Popov was dismissed then attacked by state media. The same reason Prigozhin encountered minor resistance on his march to Moscow.
Morale is low, stockpiles are depleted and industry is decimated, partially by sanctions and partially by mobilization.
Russia is using WWII tactics with cold war era equipment. Thousands of artillery pieces don't mean a whole lot if you can't put counter-battery fire on a HIMARS. Thousands of mobiks aren't going to be effective if they don't have modern training and equipment. Russia wasted hundreds of guided missiles on residential targets with no strategic value in the middle of a war.
The war is already lost. The only question now is how many more Russians have to die on Ukrainian soil before Putin starts to care.
I don't know where you get your info from, but morale in Russia is at an all-time high after the total defeat of Ukrainian offensive.
And talking about 'cold war era equipment' is frankly silly... Do you call Ka-52s, Krasnopols, Lancets, etc. cold war era equipment? This Russian hardware has been proven the real gamechanger on the battlefield, decimating Ukrainian armored formations relentlessly. But you are right about one thing, the war has definitely been lost, though by the West.
Progress has been made slow but steady by minefields. Is your Russian state tv really telling you Russia has totally defeated the Ukrainian offensive?
Maybe stop sniffing the glue.
Steady how? Still waiting for that 'big break'...
The west hasn't even joined the war, they've handed Ukraine their old spare tech and used the opportunity to upgrade their own stockpiles and done so in a manner to ensure their own security needs and combat effectiveness aren't diminished.
Imagine being so utterly clueless to think even a fraction of the might of western military has been directed at the war in Ukraine.
Ukraine is pushing back Russia with western scraps and beta tested hardware.
The Ukraine's 72nd mechanized brigade was built with fresh NATO-trained troops and western equipment. And it failed abysmally. NATO is a joke. An utter joke.
Russia was supposed to have Kiev in 3 days a year ago, where are they now? Shut the fuck up moron. You'll know when NATO joins the war because there'll be US boots on Russian soil. Now jog on back to sucking Putin's cock, I'm sure it's getting cold while you're chatting away here.
I know you are either a troll or a tankie, but it invite you to look up the winning record of Russian presidents in elections. The last time the will of the people ousted a leader from power was the the Czar. Not very democratic.
The US is by no means a perfect country and the United States elections process has many issues, but Russian elections are a joke.
That's what the western propaganda machine has been telling you. All western-backed polls paint a different picture, Putin is loved by Russian people.
No, I am going off the opinions of Russians I talk to. Yes, Putin is popular, but not to the extent that elections will tell you. Also, no one who has a chance of winning is allow to run. Many Russians don't feel comfortable expressing honest opinions on social media.
Putinland will ceace to exist if the retards in control don't realise that using nuclear weapons is a dumb idea. Putinland is run by maffia that have their boot on the Russian populations neck. The rest of the world simply can't allow those criminals to spread their terror beyond their borders. Democracy has to be defended, or we stand to loose it. Which would be bad for humanity as a whole. If Putinland would be a democracy, they would not have tried to invade a neighbour.
Russians have existed since before 1000ac and the 'free world' is here for about 200 years really. Well not counting usa, which did crazy shit to natives, but was inactive outside its own borders mostly. Who you consider the 'free world countries' actually?
If you can walk into a crowded space in a country and shout "Fuck [Country] and [Country's Leader]," go home safely that day, and your life doesn't change whatsoever over the next couple weeks, it's a "free world" country.
And in those 200 years the West used two nuclear bombs to kill or maim hundreds of thousands of mainly women and children, for example. Nothing that Russia ever did even remotely compares to that.
I guess we are talking only russian foreign affairs and not what /russians/ did to other nationalities inside russia? In that case yes, probably not as many civilian casulties from Russians compared to that 250k in japan in hiroshima and nagasaki from americans. If we do take into account domestic affairs, Stalin's 20mil always wins :)
Stalin's '20 million' are a joke, no real historian ever believes those phantasmal numbers. It's like you believe that Germans with their KZ industry were mere amateurs. 🤦🏼♂️