The Pentagon unveils $1.3 billion for Ukraine, bringing total new U.S. aid this week to $2.3 billion.
The Pentagon unveils $1.3 billion for Ukraine, bringing total new U.S. aid this week to $2.3 billion.
The money is expected to be used to buy new air-defense missile systems and other military equipment.
You're viewing a single thread.
One of the best uses of my tax dollars in my entire lifetime.
First time in my lifetime I've seen the US military might truly used for something good.
Me too. I've opposed every US war that occured in my 50 year life except this one.
Yup.
when you're on the side of the US state department, you've done something wrong
And you're not suspicious at all, as to why that's the case?
Hold on just a minute while I base my worldview on YouTube....
No, base your "worldview" on the echo chamber in these Ukraine threads, they all learned their "worldview" in Crusader Kings 3. Some of em in "Mein Kampf" it would seem.
It's infuriating to me to see Democracy Now reporting get downvoted. 🤬
Who doesn't like their tax dollars being spent on killing people instead of socialist stuff like healthcare, education, social workers and government services that actually serve citizens.
The USA could afford what's being provided to Ukraine and socialized benefits. But chooses not to because of some dumb reason or another.
This is the answer. It isn’t a zero sum game.
It's more the hypocrisy of some people. The ones who cheer for a huge defense/foreign aid budget year after year no matter who it's for, and then leave bitchy comments on FB about student loan forgiveness being "unfair" because it uses their tax dollars.
I mean, yeah, they have the biggest money printer on the planet, so they could've socialized almost everything for their citizens if it didn't go all into their black budgets, military, bribery and foreign meddling instead, but here they are, 32T in debt, double the debt from 10 years ago, ~100k of debt per person. If that's not a failed state, I don't know what is.
You don't know what is.
If that's not a failed state, I don't know what is.
You probably don't know what is it. I mean, look at South Africa for a recent example of a failed state.
perhaps do some research on the colonial history of South Africa and Western exploitation and read up on the definition of the term failed state and then look at some news reports regarding the US. I don't know how some of you people keep on coming up with these cheap rebuttals that you obviously haven't spent more than a minute of thinking on.
Why would countries just ignore global authoritarian threats
authoritarian threats
This is a meaningless term used in this way. Every state is authoritarian, by definition. The only "state" that isn't authoritarian is anarchy, and that's only not an authoritarian state because it's not a state. Use more accurate terms if you want to make a point.
Countries are ignoring global authoritarian threats, by ignoring themselves, but that's probably not the point you were trying to make.
To be global authoritarian you have to be the wealthiest and most powerful. And currently there is only one government and its army that takes this title.
What is a "global authoritarian"?
Yo, mate! Your words! I copied them from your post...
Yes and do you understand what they mean?
I do!
I guess being able to trigger global nuclear war is not global enough threat for you?
So, in your mind, helping to prevent civilians from dying in a war zone and stopping countries being taken over by foreign powers to be exploited is not a worthy humanitarian effort?
European countries are taking somewhat decent care of Ukrainian refugees, which can't be said for refugees that aren't white skinned.
And did you just collate military equipment with a humanitarian effort or am misreading that?
I'm in full support of any real humanitarian aid possible: Support their wounded and sick, support their people with basic needs (generators/energy, food, water, clothing, temporary housing, psych support etc).
Sometimes I'm really surprised at some of these questions you people come up with.
Edit: Typo.
Europe has taken in millions of non-white refugees and taken great care of them. How many have Russia and china taken in? India? Brazil?
Look it up. I'm not your personal researcher, sorry. I'm happy to provide sources to backup claims I've brought up myself.
I never compared Europe to other nations in terms of harboring refugees and I didn't even imply that Europe hasn't been taking in refugees. I wish you'd spend a bit more time reading and understanding what people are writing instead of just coming up with cheap rhetorical or whataboutism questions.
My point is people to want to go there. They want to go to Europe because they'll have good opportunities and be treated relatively well.
The main difference between Ukrainian refugees and what we usually get is that Ukrainians are, without exception, well-educated enough to start working right away, and not just in unskilled low-income jobs. Compare that with, say, Somalis with virtually no education, and not even able to sit through a class because they never got accustomed to as kids, then competing with natives for a very limited number of those low-income jobs. That's why Ukrainians get working permits straight away while we'd rather pay welfare for the Somalis until they're ready.
I don't know what it is with Seppos and making everything about race. There's actual fucking issues with integrating people from non-developed countries that are completely absent in the case of Ukraine. Ukraine may be piss-poor, yes, but its fundamentals are solid, quite a bit better than Romania and Bulgaria even I'd say and those are EU members.
EDIT: While PISA numbers are to be taken with a whole salt shaker as measuring good education is notoriously difficult (see "teach the test") Ukraine outranks Greece across the disciplines. More or less head-to head with Italy.
I was talking about the way they were treated, not which refugee is the better worker drone.
Ukrainians don't burn their passports and refuse to aid in their identification, if that's what you're alluding to because that's the kind of stuff gets you shitcanned in the "You can stay in a camp with full board and meagre pocket money and leave the country at any time but forget starting a life here" way, as the only reason to do that is if you don't actually qualify for refugee status or asylum. But, again, nothing to do with race.
Your basically proving my point, I rest my case.
What, because I assume that people would rather have a life than hang around in limbo in a camp? Yes, yes I do. OTOH it's also completely besides the point as I'm describing, plain and simply, the difference between your "brown" and "white" immigrants. The difference is that they come from different conditions, not that they have different levels of melanin -- I mean seriously they often don't. You have yet to make even an inkling of an argument to the contrary.
They have no need for healthcare, education and stuff. They are afraid of their own shadows, they just need guns to defend themselves. In the end, they can just eat those bullets to survive. ...or shoot some skool.
The US is already spending as much federal tax dollars per capita on healthcare as the UK spends on the NHS. Figures that bailing out hospitals when patients invariably default on their debt is expensive: In the US they have tons of people ending up in ER requiring expensive treatment that would've been way cheaper and easier to treat preventively -- but to do prevention you need to be able to afford a doctor's visit. Sure you can stop spending that money but then you either let hospitals go bankrupt, or you have to allow them to reject patients and have them dying on the streets. Even for Americans that's a bit too much.
I don't really have the numbers for education but one big point there is that in the US, education is largely funded by local taxes, that is, schools in low-income areas are severely underfunded, while those in high-income areas are overfunded. If anything it should be the exact opposite, the worst areas need the best schools to lift them up.
But fixing either would cut into corporate profits and/or severely alleviate income equality (and, in the US, thereby, race inequality) so, yeah, don't hold your breath.
And one of the worst uses of the 2 brain cells you have left. Your tax dollars are the driving force for war and misery across the globe for decades now, the only difference is that your government isn't hiding it anymore, because they know now that you zombies will give all your money for some entertainment on the news after shooting up a school.
if you want to call attention to the fucked up shit that the USA and NATO has done in the last couple of decades, comparing it with supplying weapons to a democracy to defend itself against an invading bunch of fascist war criminals is definitely NOT helping your case
edit: I have been informed that Ukraine isn't perfect, and that therefor the invasion and the long list of war crimes perpetrated by the invaders are justified
Democracy? The US and NATO aren't fighting for democracy. They are losing a cheap sex tourist destination in Eastern Europe because of this war. That's worth all those Billions! Don't give me the "defending democracy" excuse!
A democracy that recently announced that it postponed elections, a year after declaring the opposition parties as illegal.
You know that postponing elections during a war is : a, fucking logical, because how to fuck are you going to get a representative vote if half of the country has fled or is on the frontline and b, their constitution says there can’t be elections during martial law. source Every fucking pro Russian troll arguments in this thread need to be ousted here before this place gets to be a Russian troll pit as well.
Just the reply I was expecting, thanks for walking right into the trap where you conveniently failed to even mention the opposition part.
And I'm the troll.
Edit:
Even Foreign Policy isn't as one-sided as you are in their portrayal of the situation:
Concern over the decision to postpone Ukraine’s elections has come from both Ukraine’s friends and foes. [...] On the other hand, PACE President Tiny Kox said that while he recognizes the enormity of the struggle Ukraine faces, the country must uphold its obligations under international agreements to hold elections. “It is up to [Ukraine] how to solve this challenge,” he told a Council of Europe summit in May, adding that “there will be no complaints against Ukraine if the elections are not ideal. But if you do not hold elections, then everyone will have questions about you … without elections, democracy is impossible.”
Unless PACE is also just a Russian troll. 🤡
But indeed, elections during war/state of emergency are unconstitutional and highly impractible. Still funny you dodged the opposition point I made.
Untill you give me a source that states that the opposition isn’t able to function, I’m going to treat that part of your argument as blatant misinformation.
At least you're open about your complete lack of awareness of this war. It's shocking you're even participating in this discussion though. The arrogance of offloading basic research of topics from a year ago to someone else to prove that I'm not spreading misinformation is quite something though.
Ukraine has had to take extraordinary measures to fight Russia's invasion. Among them, the government has consolidated the country's television outlets and dissolved rival political parties.
Source is NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
Blocking opposition parties is not pretty. Not all opposition parties were blocked tough, only the ones with strong ties to Russia. source
Okay comrade...
Jawohl Herr Obersturmbannführer! Für das Vaterland!
Die mad, fash.
It is all reflection.