Jump to content

Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

On 10/24/2023 at 10:14 AM, BillStime said:


YOU brought it up! 
 

No thought of your own?
 

giphy.gif?cid=2154d3d7oixz05y87x6l0beotl
 

idiots 

It's not hard to guess his answer.   Narrative, narrative, pacs, narrative, ad hominem, pacs, narrative, narrative,  pacs, ad hominem.   I'm sure I forgot one of his snazzy incel buzzwords.  

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Na, no Uniparty

 

just again the left is lined up with a GOP leader. 

 

 


Agreed. There is no uniparty. It’s an idiotic theory for the gullible. 
 

And even a broken clock (or turtle) is right twice a day. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


Agreed. There is no uniparty. It’s an idiotic theory for the gullible. 
 

And even a broken clock (or turtle) is right twice a day. 

I'd argue the existence or absence of a "uni-party is a distinction without a difference.  As leadership of both parties support constant warfare there's little to no fundamental difference between them with regard to that activity.  Whether that's done through some singular body or through some meeting of the minds isn't important.  I'm not sure but I'm inclined to believe the US has been directly or indirectly involved in some war of some kind, somewhere since let's say 1950.  

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'd argue the existence or absence of a "uni-party is a distinction without a difference.  As leadership of both parties support constant warfare there's little to no fundamental difference between them with regard to that activity.  Whether that's done through some singular body or through some meeting of the minds isn't important.  I'm not sure but I'm inclined to believe the US has been directly or indirectly involved in some war of some kind, somewhere since let's say 1950.  

 

The MIC pays both sides well...

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'd argue the existence or absence of a "uni-party is a distinction without a difference.  As leadership of both parties support constant warfare there's little to no fundamental difference between them with regard to that activity.  Whether that's done through some singular body or through some meeting of the minds isn't important.  I'm not sure but I'm inclined to believe the US has been directly or indirectly involved in some war of some kind, somewhere since let's say 1950.  

I think you are answering in good faith and I appreciate the thought and nuance you put into your post. I am going to try to respond in the same manner, but I want to make it clear I’m not criticizing you and I apologize in advance for the length. 

 

My problem with the “uniparty” theory is that it does a thing that is both very common and fairly dangerous in modern politics: it takes a complex and nuanced issue and smashes it into a simple claim of dubious truth that can be easily dismissed by people who don’t want to engage with the underlying issues. It plays to a version of nihilism that is currently very popular and also just absolute garbage. 

 

To be clear: you didn’t do this. You actually addressed the issue and presented your view which I think is legit even if I do not share it. 

 

My criticism of the position is that it assumes all armed conflicts are equal:  Korea is Vietnam is Panama is Afghanistan Part I (where we arm Al Qaeda) is Gulf War is Bosnia is Haiti is Kosovo is Afghanistan Part II (where we fight Al Qaeda) is Iraq is Syria is Yemen is Libya is Ukraine is Israel. 

 

Given that list, it shouldn’t be surprising that I fully agree in your criticism of the military-industrial complex. We are too quick to war and none of the people to sending our sons and daughters to die will face any consequences other than getting richer on the blood of the innocent. 

 

While I originally supported the Iraq war, it eventually became clear that it was launched on lies, and so any justification for the effort melted away in my eyes. To the point that I do not think it would be unwarranted to call George W Bush a war criminal. 

 

But that doesn’t mean there are no just wars or military actions. I believe that each and every kinetic action should be viewed on its own merits, risks, and downstream consequences. Even if we are far too quick to take military action, it doesn’t mean that no military action is ever justified. 

 

I think that us spending a small fraction of our defense budget to support a young democracy in Ukraine utterly decimating Russia’s ability to make war without putting US troops on the line is such an easy decision that Ronald Reagan would be fully on board with the effort (if we want clean, unlimited power, we could just hook a power plant up to his grave and power the entire grid from his spinning at the current GOP).

 

I think supporting Israel’s right to self-defense against a brutal terrorist organization is also justified. And like with Ukraine, it has the benefit of not sending in US troops to fight. My main concern with the current Israeli operations is that if they are not careful about civilians, they will help Hamas recruit the next generation of terrorists. 

 

Being concerned about, and critical of, the military industrial complex is the right thing to do. But blindly dismissing any action as *just* a part of America’s long history of foreign violence is lazy and uncritical. I think that’s what a lot of the uniparty stuff boils down to and why it’s mostly BS. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2023 at 2:50 PM, ChiGoose said:

Agreed. There is no uniparty. It’s an idiotic theory for the gullible. 

Two wings of the same bird?

Follow the money, all goes right back to the same quintile.

 

The government is taxing, regulating, surveilling and socializing the heck out of everything. It’s been that way since FDR. Both parties are full of tangled snakes; some are simply blue and some are red.   

Our elected representatives are no longer civil servants or statesmen. The statesmen have gone extinct. Politicians, in both parties, and their special-interest ventriloquists are pursuing their own happiness while sacrificing the liberty of the American people and destroying the republic.

 

Most of our elected leaders are nothing but pawns. A select few seem to be standing up for compromise and bipartisan agreement, trying to lead. However, both sides are equally responsible for the political immaturity and scripted conflicts we’re seeing. Nothing is getting done in D.C. except bickering, stalemate and the spending of taxpayer money.

Freedom is deteriorating by the day in this country because of the actions of both Republicans and Democrats.

 

Nothing is getting done in D.C. except what the ventriloquists want the puppets to do. Our elected representatives, especially the executive, are dividing us. George Soros paid well, as did the Koch brothers. 

 

The representatives are sticking to the script, as is the President. Our congressmen have failed us. The president has failed us. They’ve yielded this nation to ungodly powers.

Being an elected representative in this republic was once a civil service. It was a duty to the ordinary American. Nowadays, representatives are loyal only to the special interests that put them into power.

The destruction taking place transcends us all. Yet, we the people can rise. We can redeem freedom. Freedom is an idea, and ideas are indestructible. Our freedom will remain stronger than the tyranny manifesting itself. America will rise from these dark times. 

 

Todd 2013 and still holds true.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Tommy Callahan
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...