i tend to agree, although believe the conflict will escalate further anyways (not necessarily just militarily). i think i read that it goes beyond war crimes now too, qualifies as crimes against humanity.
I mean people are advocating for escalation in response which is US foreign policy so....everyone is talking about it.
Jim Sciutto is smart enough to know that the "Americans" he refers to is Trump and his supporters. But he can't tell the truth as a reporter because it would make him seem bias.
Mostly, but there were a couple of (mostly former) Democrats too. Tulsi Gabbard comes to mind. But yeah, mostly Republicans.
Trump asked Putin to cook up some shit about Hunter Biden two days ago. Hmm, maybe the rich fascists in the world are in cahoots? Maybe they want the whole world under their boot? But what evidence do we have to prove such a conspiracy as that? The quest for clarity goes on.
We already know you don't care about genocide towards brown ppl. No need to throw an exclamation point on it
Electricity production and storage still requires resource extraction from the earth. It may be different people that effectively monopolize those resources, but they’ll probably suck just as much as the ones that control the oil now. That’s not to say we shouldn’t move off of oil - we should. I just wouldn’t expect our new overlords to be appreciably nicer.
I also want to take the brave stand of saying I am against people causing preventable deaths and murders and such. Which is why I am against going to war with Russia as that’s just going to make those preventable death numbers skyrocket.
And you advocate for nothing, just back bench and yell how bad America is because that gets the likes
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is actually the ideal scenario for US military support. Ukraine has a distinctive culture, language, and history separate from Russia. Ukraine has capable army they that know that they will all be killed if they fail. All the best Russian troops were parachuted in and died in an airport. Give Ukraine weapons and they will use them to kill Russians. Don't know that you can kill enough Russians for Russians to themselves to remove Putin from power, but it is worth a shot.
Brass tax so much of this depends on the validity of the people we're arming. It's easy to give weapons to a government with a set logistics apparatus and people who are defending their homeland. On the other hand giving stuff to Syrian rebels who are essentially a neighborhood group of guys who hate people a town (paranoia) just as much as Assad? Lets compare a lot of this to Syria, when we sent TOW missiles (among other weapons) we basically had to trust Middle Eastern (primarily Jordanian) intelligence agencies to get those TOWs to the rebels. Despite Jordan having (from what I understand) an elite intelligence agency some of those weapons (Eastern Euro or Saudi stockpiles) ended up with Isis or elsewhere due to leakage. Part of the reason Obama got Iran to the negotiating table was the fact that they were basically propping up the Syrian economy themselves because there was functionally no economy. In terms of realpolitik US policy was it good to arm Syrian rebels who probably would've created some sort of Sunni heartland? Absolutely. Did this result in more deaths? Absolutely. Nothing is simple and our pathologically short attention span fucks with any real discussion on these massively complicated issues that can't be solved in a tweet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/05/world/middleeast/syria-drugs-captagon-assad.html chuckmasterflex halfway touched on it earlier but from a brutality standpoint Syria has been fine from our perspective. As the NY Times article from December 2021 examines Assad has no real economy so he's basically reduced to turning a blind eye towards drug trafficking. Assad isn't falling but for non-humanitarian reasons it absolutely behooves us to sap his (and Iran's) strength. The CIA's program getting TOW missiles and other weapons to rebels was very effective from the standpoint of us not wanting Assad to fall but instead suck Iran more into the conflict, ultimately we didn't want the the rebels to win because they sucked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore not pretty be warned
Foreign policy and "that drug a shithead NC congressman" mentioned last week mix very well. Lining things up all night.
Lyrtch legit curious your policy thoughts on arming Syrian rebels and the Iran deal? Shitty options all around I'm strapped in to discuss. Sorry thread followers scroll down please.
I need some magic dust cause I'm going to bed but tag me tomorrow and we can discuss Iran deal good though if we're talking the jcpoa
DO MORE COKE CLEMTARD Yeah fair enough I hate that other people have to read this shit (PLS SCROLL DOWN) but bottom line is very complicated issue we can't break down in 1-2 tweets. Will try but bottomline like all of Obama's foreign policy decisions it was a thoughtful approach looked at 5 steps down the road to the point that the particular policy doesn't mean shit.
You can tell someone has a good point when they make snarky posts and don’t bring any actual content to a thread.
if Ukrainians didn’t want to be brutally murdered by Russia they shouldn’t have been trying to arm themselves to defend against being brutally murdered by Russia