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

[gay_Aleks]

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.

Yes.

I will spare you the images of deformed Iraqi children and instead give you this report by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

Then, of course, there's the firing of DU shells into civilian areas, which peace groups have reported allll the way back in 2014. Once again, I ask: Is this what you want for Ukraine? As poison and radiation does not, in fact, differentiate in terms of ethnicity, as far as I'm aware.

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?

Optimistically, they would mean the end of war, the return of the occupied territories by Russia (apart from Crimea, which seems like a lost cause; I feel like after the conflict few would be inclined to), a guarantee of Russian minorities' rights (aka what was proposed in Minsk II) and neutrality of Ukraine.

My source re: peace negotiations is from here, primarily:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1577277257441497088

Of course, the situation has since then vastly radicalised and hardlined on both sides. Tragic - I do not like war. I don't like it when Russians wage it, nor when Ukrainians do it.

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.

I can see Ukrainians not wanting to give up yet but I feel like maybe not a lot of people have asked them the questions I'm asking you, the people giving them the poison. However, thank you for being the first person to answer without immediately jumping to some lame deflection.

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.

[snip] To compound the Russian revanchist, Putin, and Trump with his white supremacist mania to repress all who are unlike him, with communists desiring the end of imperialism is idiotic, and only liberals too blinkered to see past their nose. To wit: Putin's war is over land, over a mythical Russian Empire that once ruled Ukraine - communists want to end all empires. Trump is a vile white supremacist that wants women and queer people to return back to the "mythical 50s" - communists do not want that, we wish to go forward. It's the height of bad faith that pervades here in the pro-Ukrainian liberal tendency here that you appear to believe that anyone who's against you must be for the other, imperialist side. We are not - we're for the workers, the proletariat, of whichever nation. Is this clear, or will you follow this up with more diatribe disguised as clever retorts?

Moderator Action: PDMA removed by Birdjaguar.

 

[Ajidica]

We are not - we're for the workers, the proletariat, of whichever nation.

Which of course results in going "But won't someone think of the grass!" as Russian artillery shells are landing in Ukraine and lacerating the bodies of Ukrainian civilians with shrapnel.
Any condemnation of Russian imperial aggression gets buried in paragraphs upon paragraphs about how evil it is that Ukraine has the audacity to want to defend itself and doing the right thing surprisingly aligns with US foreign policy.

 

[Lexicus]

I can see Ukrainians not wanting to give up yet but I feel like maybe not a lot of people have asked them the questions I'm asking you, the people giving them the poison. However, thank you for being the first person to answer without immediately jumping to some lame deflection.

I would guess they are aware broadly of the hazards from these munitions, but consider the present threat from Russia to be much more pressing and urgent. If Ukraine survives these issues can be dealt with in due course; if Russia succeeds in its war aims Ukrainians will have bigger things to worry about than stepping on the occasional unexploded munition or the reproductive health effects of depleted uranium.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@gay_Aleks was not refering to @Crezth specifically and I was being sarcastic.

Furthermore, what you wrote is the reason I said they would part ways. Trumpies want to get back to the 50s, Crezth is not a Trumpie.

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.

See? I said so at the end.

Edit: I enjoyed "vile slander" though. Made me chuckle

Optimistically, they would mean the end of war, the return of the occupied territories by Russia (apart from Crimea, which seems like a lost cause; I feel like after the conflict few would be inclined to), a guarantee of Russian minorities' rights (aka what was proposed in Minsk II) and neutrality of Ukraine.

I do like these conditions ( however unlikely they are), but I'm puzzled what you meant by "neutrality of Ukraine".

If that refers to whether or not they will look to join NATO, that is an internal matter for Ukrainians to decide. Not a condition.

However, thank you for being the first person to answer without immediately jumping to some lame deflection.

I missed this at first. Are you refering to me?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Which of course results in going "But won't someone think of the grass!" as Russian artillery shells are landing in Ukraine and lacerating the bodies of Ukrainian civilians with shrapnel.

Well, people notably just exist and reproduce without the soil, being totally separated from it. As for the artillery shells landing, I think that you had that covered by BJ posting about Bakhmut; it's an obvious point.

Any condemnation of Russian imperial aggression gets buried in paragraphs upon paragraphs about how evil it is that Ukraine has the audacity to want to defend itself and doing the right thing surprisingly aligns with US foreign policy.

You seem to have gotten the hang of denouncing the Russian imperial aggression well underway; too well, some may say, or too much.

Furthermore, since this thread is discussing the United States government, and this is an overwhelmingly Anglophone forum - the only active Russian poster here is red_elk, who you ritually beat up verbally as a pinata - one feels like an introduction of a measured doubt into the good intentions of the U.S within this conflict.

I would guess they are aware broadly of the hazards from these munitions, but consider the present threat from Russia to be much more pressing and urgent. If Ukraine survives these issues can be dealt with in due course; if Russia succeeds in its war aims Ukrainians will have bigger things to worry about than stepping on the occasional unexploded munition or the reproductive health effects of depleted uranium.

I think that the effects of DU go beyond reproductive health effects; they also ruin the soil, which in a country like Ukraine that depends on agricultural production is quite damaging, I would reckon. Cleaning up mines is insanely expensive and difficult to do. Cambodia is still suffering from the 'gifts' left by the U.S military, nearly 50 years after the fact.

@gay_Aleks was not refering to @Crezth specifically and I was being sarcastic.

Furthermore, what you wrote is the reason I said they would part ways. Trumpies want to get back to the 50s, Crezth is not a Trumpie.

Edit: I enjoyed "vile slander" though. Made me chuckle

What in the world was the point of that post, then?

I do like these conditions, but I'm puzzled what you meant by "neutrality of Ukraine".

If that refers to whether or not they will look to join NATO, that is an internal matter for Ukrainians to decide. Not a condition.

The issue is that it's hardly internal to Ukraine, unfortunately. We all wish to believe in national self-determination, but powerful actors - both Russian and NATO - are trying to influence the Ukrainian peoples to one path or another, whether it's by the way of sponsoring internal movements (Euromaidan to an extent, as well as the Donbass independence movements), diplomatic maneuvering or so on. It's probably in the interest of all Ukrainian people that they remain neutral within this now quite open struggle. Tragically, the likelihood of this decreases daily.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What in the world was the point of that post, then?

I made that post specifically for you to not read and accuse me of "vile slander"

And that's where the unity will end, because then US really bad.

Christ on a bicycle.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I missed this at first. Are you refering to me?

If it makes you feel any better: not specifically, no.

I made that post specifically for you to not read and accuse me of "vile slander"

Christ on a bicycle.

Well, in this subforum, I hear, people respect good faith arguments as opposed to pointless and needless sniping with little to add to the conversation, hence why I was curious why you would've made such a post. However, I'll not continue this lest the moderators [snip] us out of existence, as it were.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

pointless and needless sniping with little to add to the conversation

utterly vile slander.

Ok, I see. Fair enough.

 

[Lexicus]

I think that the effects of DU go beyond reproductive health effects; they also ruin the soil, which in a country like Ukraine that depends on agricultural production is quite damaging, I would reckon. Cleaning up mines is insanely expensive and difficult to do. Cambodia is still suffering from the 'gifts' left by the U.S military, nearly 50 years after the fact.

I still think indefinite Russian occupation of the whole of Ukraine would be worse, again judging by the Russian conduct of the war so far.

 

[Joij21]

DRAMA BOMB!!!

Slander is fun and entertaining! People like it, hence the tabloids!!

 

[Remorseless1]

Peace is preferred. Pollution-free environment is preferred. No one argues with that. Unfortunately, history is replete with nation states, empires, etc. using force against other countries or states. It's beyond obscene and demonstrates how uncivilized humans can be.

All of thus is true, and I'm sure most regular people agree.

But at this moment in, Ukrainians are faced with a foreign country trying to eliminate its independence, maybe even eradicate Ukrainian culture and language. It is depressing that helping Ukraine fight off the people invading their lives and destroying their livelihood is the only option left, but there you are. It should be noted Western political leaders try to warn Putin off, offering instead negotiations instead of bombs. Putin's reply in the weeks leading up to the invasion was that he had no plans to invade Ukraine. So there we are.

As for pollution caused by depleted uranium tank rounds or other "nasty" weapons, well, the radiation carried by those rounds is rather small. In aggregate, yes, millions of those rounds could cause a problem. However, when a tank is blown up by conventional rounds, all the diesel that doesn't ignite seeps into the soil. The particulate matter tossed into the atmosphere by conventional munitions is another pollutant. Ships sunk in the Black Sea release all kinds of pollutants into the water. War is wading neck deep in horsehocky. It's a giant waste of lives, resources, and material.

To me, there is no such thing as a just war, and very few can be labeled justified. This one, on the Ukraine side, is justifiable. If the Ukrainians don't want something offered by the US or its NATO allies, they're free to do so. Right now, they're just trying to stay afloat in the middle of a cruel war launched by a wannabe emperor who is worried about a sizeable democratic state right on his borders.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, in this subforum, I hear, people respect good faith arguments as opposed to pointless and needless sniping with little to add to the conversation

Some of us are smart alecks, gay_Aleks.

 

[Wastl]

I find this complaining about depleted uranium and cluster bombs rather odd. It seems more like an excuse to shift the debate elsewhere and deflect from the sole reason for the war (Russia), then to make an actual argument. An attempt to equate things that aren't equal.

First of all, Russia has been using both the entire time, and Ukraine also used some variety of them prior to getting any from the US. Secondly, the effect of depleted uranium ammunition in terms of effect on the environment is negligible compared to the overall impact of the general destruction caused by all sorts of weapons. This isn't some sort of stuff that will cause things to glow in the dark, that's not how any of this works.

When it comes to cluster bombs, yes they do tend to have a somewhat high rate of duds. But guess what? Russia has basically covered half the region with all sorts of mines. So not only will it (eventually) take a gargantuan effort to clear those minefields anyway, but the overall harm for the population will be much higher if you don't use these weapons than if you do, both in terms of those who defend their land from the invader, as well as the civilians who may at some point in the future walk on that land again. Not using the weapons makes it harder to take back land, and it doesn't really make the areas more dangerous in the future, as any duds there might be are more than made up by the mines that get destroyed. It doesn't make a different if you have to search for unexploded cluster bombs or mines, it's just that there are far more mines than unexploded cluster bombs.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Optimistically, they would mean the end of war, the return of the occupied territories by Russia (apart from Crimea, which seems like a lost cause; I feel like after the conflict few would be inclined to), a guarantee of Russian minorities' rights (aka what was proposed in Minsk II) and neutrality of Ukraine.

Russia will never willingly give up the territories they currently occupy. They passed a constitutional amendment stating that the oblasts they occupy are an eternal part of Russia.

 

[Remorseless1]

Still wondering how depleted uranium tank rounds and pollution fits into a discussion why Inmate P01135809's Congressmen want to eliminate wholly any aid to Ukraine?

 

[REDY]

Russia will never willingly give up the territories they currently occupy. They passed a constitutional amendment stating that the oblasts they occupy are an eternal part of Russia.

Russian constitution is worth of rubles, nearly every article is violated. For amusement I recommend google and read it.
There is clear different treatment between regions and allways were.
If will Putin change his mind, everything is possible.

One example of changing boundaries: https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/09/29/a-slap-in-the-face-of-public-taste-en
But theres much more. The raping and murders is illegal in Russia. Wagnerites should never existed according Russian law. Prisoners should not have been recruited by them etc
There is a good article how Russian constitutional amendments work here https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/russias-broken-constitution (before the war)

 

[Zardnaar]

Russian constitution is worth of rubles, nearly every article is violated. For amusement I recommend google and read it.
There is clear different treatment between regions and allways were.
If will Putin change his mind, everything is possible.

One example of changing boundaries: https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/09/29/a-slap-in-the-face-of-public-taste-en
But theres much more. The raping and murders is illegal in Russia. Wagnerites should never existed according Russian law. Prisoners should not have been recruited by them etc
There is a good article how Russian constitutional amendments work here https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/russias-broken-constitution (before the war)

I've seen a Russian refer to it as a great piece of fiction.

 

[RobAnybody]

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.

Well, I mean, were they wrong?

But to get back to the topic of the thread, the Republicans (to be fair, a subset of them) in the House do this all the time. They complain about "spending". But here's how you can tell they are lying: they are insisting on increased border security, which means more spending (not trying to derail on the issue of border security, just pointing out that they are insisting on more spending be included, just for different stuff).

Also, fwiw, Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling three times under Trump, without calling for any spending cuts.

All three times, Congress didn’t vote to raise the limit by a specific amount, the way they usually do, and the way they most recently did in 2021 when Biden was in office. Instead, they voted to suspend the limit altogether, allowing the Treasury to borrow the funds it needed at will.

Then, when the suspension was over, a new ceiling was automatically installed based on how much the Treasury had borrowed in the interim.

As a result, the debt ceiling rose by several trillion dollars during Trump’s term.

 

[Cutlass]

Because conservatism and treason are the same thing.

 

[RobAnybody]

Jesus. Just reading that edginess almost cut me.

(big fan, btw, just kidding here)