Why Should the security of Ukraine cause the U.S. government to shut down?

[Ziggy Stardust]

how much should America continue to support Ukraine and should that support include weapons and military training officers, or be restricted to things like food and medicine?

As much as needed. And no.

Should America continue to support Ukraine even if it must shut down its own government to do so?

No. But it doesn't need to shut down it's own government because of Ukraine.

And finally, which of these two is a better use of American tax dollars: 1. sending weapons to foreign countries, or 2. feeding the hungry, housing the unhoused, and treating the sick?

I'll rephrase that:

And finally these two are a good use of American tax dollars: 1. support freedom and democracy and 2. feeding the hungry, housing the unhoused, and treating the sick!

There you go.

Question to @Crezth Do you actually believe the Republicans threatening government shutdown are concerned about feeding the hungry, housing the unhoused, and treating the sick?

 

[danjuno]

We can do both, but it's not in the interest of the wealthy to do so.

 

[Gorbles]

We can do both, but it's not in the interest of the wealthy to do so.

Por que no los d- oh, wait.

 

[Lexicus]

Sorry, have to push back a little. Don't be 'fair' to Republican politicians in this way. In fact, we're probably not berating them as much as they deserve. They deliberately mislead their constituents all the time, and prey on and stoke their fears. I actually think the average conservative voter is a better person than we're led to believe, if we judge them by their politicians. Just last week, I heard a recording of Mike Pence telling 'his' people that they need to be armed to ride the subway in New York City. He made it sound like The Warriors. (I'm not sure when the recording was made. It wasn't that long ago, though.)

I am not commenting on how "good" the Republican voters are, but we wouldn't have these maniacs in Congress if people didn't keep voting for them. As far as I'm concerned anyone who voted for a Republican for Congress in 2022 is to blame for this shutdown.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I am not sure how does cluster bombs, mines and other pollutants of Ukraine's nature are 'protecting' democracy, but it's clear CFC has gotten it all under control; so I will sit down my ass and learn.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am not sure how does cluster bombs, mines and other pollutants of Ukraine's nature are 'protecting' democracy, but it's clear CFC has gotten it all under control; so I will sit down my ass and learn.

Right, so take notes:

Presidential elections were held in Ukraine on 31 March 2019. As none of the 39 candidates on the ballot received an absolute majority of the initial vote, a runoff was held on 21 April between the top two vote-getters, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a television personality, and the incumbent president, Petro Poroshenko. According to the Central Election Commission (CEC), Zelenskyy won the second round with 73.22% of the votes.[1][2][3] The election was recognized as free and fair

[editors note: Putin was not elected president]

But then ...

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014. The invasion is the biggest attack on a European country since the Second World War. It is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties and hundreds of thousands of military casualties. By April 2023, about 8 million Ukrainians had been internally displaced. More than 8.2 million had fled the country by May 2023, creating Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II. Extensive environmental damage caused by the war contributed to food crises worldwide.

Was that educational?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Not really, no. Do you know how long cluster bombs and DU ordinances remain in the soil? Suppose Ukraine wins the war and pushes Russia back, reconquering all of the lands that it held back in 2014. What it would inherit is a ruined, dangerous land, which was, of course, enabled with the help that almost every single user here appears to be braying for. I also don't think that providing more dangerous guns would really resolve the already on-going environmental crisis, either.

Really, however, the issue is the strange assumption that this war is for freedom and liberty; just as the Russian casus belli of "denazification" (careful with that word!) is equally false, here one feels distinctly unsure about it. As Zelensky has banned several parties on the basis of being pro-Russian (again, another liberal demerit), well, the overwhelming sense one gets is that the war, from both sides is nothing more but a struggle for the prime agricultural lands in Europe. A struggle, which like all such imperialistic conflicts, will only end in ruin.

[And, to the amateur mind-readers out there: No, this is not an endorsement of the Russian invasion, unless you consider anyone questioning the U.S motives for (at present indirect) intervention to be verboten. Which, you would be in your right to; but it would somewhat impugn upon your liberal credentials, I would think.]

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not really, no. Do you know how long cluster bombs and DU ordinances remain in the soil? Suppose Ukraine wins the war and pushes Russia back, reconquering all of the lands that it held back in 2014. What it would inherit is a ruined, dangerous land, which was, of course, enabled with the help that almost every single user here appears to be braying for. I also don't think that providing more dangerous guns would really resolve the already on-going environmental crisis, either.

Really, however, the issue is the strange assumption that this war is for freedom and liberty; just as the Russian casus belli of "denazification" (careful with that word!) is equally false, here one feels distinctly unsure about it. As Zelensky has banned several parties on the basis of being pro-Russian (again, another liberal demerit), well, the overwhelming sense one gets is that the war, from both sides is nothing more but a struggle for the prime agricultural lands in Europe. A struggle, which like all such imperialistic conflicts, will only end in ruin.

[And, to the amateur mind-readers out there: No, this is not an endorsement of the Russian invasion, unless you consider anyone questioning the U.S motives for (at present indirect) intervention to be verboten. Which, you would be in your right to; but it would somewhat impugn upon your liberal credentials, I would think.]

This is why I explained that Zelensky was elected while Putin wasn't. Putin is taking the region by force. Which is not very democratic, while elections are. That is why I mentioned democracy.
The people living in the occupied areas are being oppressed by Russian forces. That is not being free, but quite the opposite. That's why I mentioned freedom.

The solution to supposed banning of parties (if that's true, I don't know) is not to invade a country causing 10,000 dead civilians. The solution is soft diplomacy to make Zelensky clean up his act.

edit: please tell me you weren't refering to the banning of pro-Russian parties on march 20th 2022.

 

[gay_Aleks]

This is why I explained that Zelensky was elected while Putin wasn't. Putin is taking the region by force. Which is not very democratic, while elections are. That is why I mentioned democracy.
The people living in the occupied areas are being oppressed by Russian forces. That is not being free, but quite the opposite. That's why I mentioned freedom.

you've not answered my actual question regarding the environment. the pollution would be enabled by U.S taxpayers. is this what you want? Is this how far your defense of liberty and freedom goes?

The solution to supposed banning of parties (if that's true, I don't know) is not to invade a country causing 10,000 dead civilians. The solution is soft diplomacy to make Zelensky clean up his act.

The banning occurred during the invasion; I guess it's okay if you do it while at war.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

you've not answered my actual question regarding the environment.

I know. I reacted to your passive aggresive reaction regarding my statement.

I hope I clarified that statement.

The banning occurred during the invasion; I guess it's okay if you do it while at war.

Maybe you could find it understandable?

 

[Birdjaguar]

@gay_Aleks What is your solution to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia? How would you fight a "clean" war? Is using "regular" artillery to lay waste to city "clean"?

 

[gay_Aleks]

I know. I reacted to your passive aggresive reaction regarding my statement.

I hope I clarified that statement.

Well, in most Western nations, the absence of an outright "no" answer means that you are in agreement of something; so, I am forced, in lieu of any evidence to the contrary, to assume that you're answering with "yes" to the question of "Do you think that it's appropriate to send poisonous ammunition to defend freedom and liberty?". I personally think that's too far.

Maybe you could find it understandable?

Puts a bit of a blemish on his liberalism, especially as the parties in question were mostly left-wing and representing the Russian minority within Ukraine. Is liberalism conditional now?

What is your solution to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia? How would you fight a "clean" war? Is using "regular" artillery to lay waste to city "clean"?

Peace negotiations, which both sides have hinted at desiring thorough the last year and a half at various times, which were unfortunately foiled by various forces - the U.S and likely Russian hardliners, as well. Soft diplomacy, as someone else in the thread said, not bloody braying for more guns.

(However, if you wish to explore just how damaging DU and cluster ammunition is, one's at liberty to see the devastating effects it has in Iraq. I believe it would be a harrowing, if educational, experience. There's nothing regular about them, nothing clean.]

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, in most Western nations, the absence of an outright "no" answer means that you are in agreement of something;

It doesn't. It means it was irrelevant to my statement.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Peace negotiations, which both sides have hinted at desiring thorough the last year and a half at various times, which were unfortunately foiled by various forces - the U.S and likely Russian hardliners, as well. Soft diplomacy, as someone else in the thread said, not bloody braying for more guns.

Tell me what those negotiations could look like.

And it's a lie that Ukraine desires negotiations. They are very determined to retake their land.
edit; And Russia also doesn't desire those.

Where did you get that from?

 

[Birdjaguar]

(However, if you wish to explore just how damaging DU and cluster ammunition is, one's at liberty to see the devastating effects it has in Iraq. I believe it would be a harrowing, if educational, experience. There's nothing regular about them, nothing clean.]

Worst than this? War is ugly business and measuring the pain it causes is hardly a calculation easily made. There are degrees of atrociousness for sure, but total destruction of cities is pretty nasty.

 

[Lexicus]

Peace negotiations, which both sides have hinted at desiring thorough the last year and a half at various times, which were unfortunately foiled by various forces - the U.S and likely Russian hardliners, as well. Soft diplomacy, as someone else in the thread said, not bloody braying for more guns.

(However, if you wish to explore just how damaging DU and cluster ammunition is, one's at liberty to see the devastating effects it has in Iraq. I believe it would be a harrowing, if educational, experience. There's nothing regular about them, nothing clean.]

I'm reticent about DU and cluster munitions for sure, but the closest-to-the-issue stakeholders are the Ukrainians and they seem to be completely in favor of using those munitions. I think the horrible atrocities that the Russians are committing on the occupied territory are probably mostly responsible for fueling that attitude. The environmental damage and hazards created by these weapons must be weighed against the threat of genocide if Russia wins the war. Which segues into the point about peace negotiations nicely, I guess. I don't rule out US and UK being against negotiations, but realistically I don't think all of NATO put together could stop Ukraine from making a peace agreement with Russia, if the Ukrainians wanted to. And my sense is basically that Ukrainians don't want to, largely because of how Russia has conducted the war: not only the indiscriminate bombardment of cities, but plenty of atrocities behind the front line. Putin and his henchmen openly talk of destroying the Ukrainian state and extinguishing Ukrainian national identity.

 

[Joij21]

There are some views that need to be shamed and then buried. We see them daily among the MAGA voters and legislators. Their only goal is destruction so they can stay in power.

Well @Crezth isn't a MAGA Republican as far as I know. A vanguardist revolutionary socialist is more like it (in other words a tankie).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They are united by: US bad.

That is, until Trump makes it great again, like it was in the 50ies. And that's where the unity will end, because then US really bad.

 

[Joij21]

They are united by: US bad.

That is, until Trump makes it great again, like it was in the 50ies. And that's where the unity will end, because then US really bad.

Oh IDK, Democrats also go US bad when things aren't going their way too. Just look at the Bush years, that's the peak of US bad among Democrats.

 

[Broken_Erika]

View attachment 673991

Might want to spoiler that.