Musk on USAID: ‘Time for it to die’

[stevil]

Why are you trying to insult the U.S. by saying they "didn't do anything for a very long time"? We didn't go to war until war was brought to us.

It's not an insult. NZ declared war with Germany on 3 Sept 1939
USA declared war with Germany on Dec 11 1941. Over two years later. This is not an insult, it is just a fact.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm sure Putin would agree with you.

Maybe in the modern world in which you live there's no danger of a foreign power invading another country. Maybe in the world in which you live it's not the done thing to promise your friends 'Hey, if someone comes for you, then I'll be there to help'. Maybe the world in which you live is a very long way from eastern Europe. Maybe your world has never been invaded.

True. In my world I don't have an aggressive enemy like NATO encroaching on my doorstep for no reason, thank goodness.

 

[Bradskii]

True. In my world I don't have an aggressive enemy like NATO encroaching on my doorstep for no reason, thank goodness.

If you think NATO is an aggressive danger then this is a discussion not worth having.

 

[Pommer]

Is NATO going to start a war with Russia?

What if the USA and Russia switched?
What if NATO was Russia’s baby and the America-firsters get their way and it becomes USA V. The World!?
O, my we’d need a strong President then!
We have Trump.
Who’s “excited”?

 

[Pommer]

Ukraine is a de facto NATO country, else why would the U.S. spend a gazillion dollars to fight Russia over it?

Because we promised them if they got rid of their nuclear weapons, we’d defend them against just such an attack?

 

[Pommer]

Why are you trying to insult the U.S. by saying they "didn't do anything for a very long time"? We didn't go to war until war was brought to us.

Cough Iraq cough!

 

[Chesterton]

Because we promised them if they got rid of their nuclear weapons, we’d defend them against just such an attack?

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Cough Iraq cough!

Please explain what point you're trying to make here.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you even pay attention to what the Trump fans say?

What?

I do pay attention to what they say.

I'll still stand by my original assertion.

Democrats seem to see US politics through the lens of "If we just got Trump out of the way, the other team would fall back in-line and we could accomplish all the things we want to accomplish just like we used to"

Republicans don't see it through the same lens. They very much acknowledge that the fact that the Nancy Pelosis, the AOCs, the Liz Warrens, and Chuck Schumers are just spokes in a much bigger collective wheel.


Evidenced by the lengths they went to run a scorched earth political and media campaign to convince the American public that Donald Trump should be unelectable. As if they thought that staunch resistance to their policy initiatives lives and dies with one guy.

With or without Donald Trump, the days of Democrats getting to run against "squishy" republicans for easy wins is over.

do you know the difference between an eyeopener and "enemy of my enemy"?

This situation is perhaps a little bit of both...

But: "Enemy of my Enemy" logic was never viewed as a valid reason for military meddling among democrats in the past.

And the "eyeopener" you speak of was somewhat artificial, as the "eyeopener" wasn't something that came about organically. It was coordinated effort to "open people's eyes to something" for self-serving reasons.

It was an eye opening in the same way that an Oliver Stone or Michael Moore "documentary" is eye opening. In that, while it certainly gives people new information and factoids that they may not have been previously aware of, the disseminator of said info is using and presenting it in a specific way to get the "newly enlightened" people on their side ideologically.

 

[Jipsah]

Sure we did. Then we freed them, and now we can hate the guys who shamed us into giving them room and board and Sundays off while they were slaves. We can even send Musk and his thugs around to drag them out of their offices. Oops. It looks like we could have done that without having freed them and it would have made the slaves cheaper to keep. I guess Trump is a smarter President than Jeff Davis was.

I'm sorry, was USAID using slave labor? Can we set that right by financing trans-sexual ping-pong in Bolivia? Should we take up the cis-man's burden and teach the less enlightened that "gender" is a spectrum and that a confused boy can be transformed into a suicidal girl with the proper surgery? I mean, it's only a few gigabucks, Uncle Sammy blows through that much before tiffin, and they take tiffin pretty doggone early in those parts.And just think how much better we'll feel about ourselves if we know that we've spent a few thousand million dollars building state of the art squash courts in Côte d'Ivoire.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I do pay attention to what they say.

I'll still stand by my original assertion.

Democrats seem to see US politics through the lens of "If we just got Trump out of the way, the other team would fall back in-line and we could accomplish all the things we want to accomplish just like we used to"

Republicans don't see it through the same lens. They very much acknowledge that the fact that the Nancy Pelosis, the AOCs, the Liz Warrens, and Chuck Schumers are just spokes in a much bigger collective wheel.


Evidenced by the lengths they went to run a scorched earth political and media campaign to convince the American public that Donald Trump should be unelectable. As if they thought that staunch resistance to their policy initiatives lives and dies with one guy.

With or without Donald Trump, the days of Democrats getting to run against "squishy" republicans for easy wins is over.



This situation is perhaps a little bit of both...

But: "Enemy of my Enemy" logic was never viewed as a valid reason for military meddling among democrats in the past.

And the "eyeopener" you speak of was somewhat artificial, as the "eyeopener" wasn't something that came about organically. It was coordinated effort to "open people's eyes to something" for self-serving reasons.

I'm trying to remember what this sub-thread was about...

Oh, yeah. Funding for a project that characterized russian propgandists as .. russian propagandists. Oh. No. It's not about your characterization of the Democratic party or its leadership or their motivations to support Ukraine in 2022 whether they did so before or not.

It was an eye opening in the same way that an Oliver Stone or Michael Moore "documentary" is eye opening. In that, while it certainly gives people new information and factoids that they may not have been previously aware of, the disseminator of said info is using and presenting it in a specific way to get the "newly enlightened" people on their side ideologically.

Speaking of russian propagandists.. Stone has produced propaganda films for putin *after* the Crimean invasion.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Speaking of russian propagandists.. Stone has produced propaganda films for putin *after* the Crimean invasion.

Not terribly surprising, that kind of content is what guys like Stone, Moore, and D'souza have become known for, making "documentaries" that play a little fast and loose with the details in order to draw viewers over to their ideological positions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm trying to remember what this sub-thread was about...

Oh, yeah. Funding for a project that characterized russian propgandists as .. russian propagandists. Oh. No. It's not about your characterization of the Democratic party or its leadership or their motivations to support Ukraine in 2022 whether they did so before or not.

But that's where we seem to be talking past each other...

If those self-serving motivations are the reason for a desire to "highlight and expose Russian propagandists", and the entity with the self-serving motivations are the ones who get to define "propagandist", it's perfectly valid to question their sincerity.


Perhaps the best comparison I can give:

When you hear many of the hard-right republican talking points about how "Did you know that in Muslim countries they don't let women drive or vote, and they'll even execute people are LGBT or atheists!"

They may be "exposing" a truth that some people weren't aware of, but does anyone, for even a split second, think their actual motivation for fixating on that is a desire to protect rights of women, gays, or free-thinkers? Or is it merely a subversion attempt to drum up support for things like travel bans, invading middle eastern countries, and "Christianity-first" domestic policies?

 

[stevil]

When you hear many of the hard-right republican talking points about how "Did you know that in Muslim countries they don't let women drive or vote, and they'll even execute people are LGBT or atheists!"

They may be "exposing" a truth that some people weren't aware of, but does anyone, for even a split second, think their actual motivation for fixating on that is a desire to protect rights of women, gays, or free-thinkers? Or is it merely a subversion attempt to drum up support for things like travel bans, invading middle eastern countries, and "Christianity-first" domestic policies?

Probably both.

BTW, if a person says, "Did you know that in Muslim countries they don't let women drive or vote". I wouldn't assume the person is right wing.
The person is making very poor generalisations though. Because the vast majority of Muslim countries allow women to drive and vote.

There are lots of Muslim countries where they have a woman as the head of state.

List of Muslim women heads of state and government - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USA has never voted in a woman President.

If people are complaining about how poorly women are treated in certain countries, they should name those specific countries, not say "in Muslim countries". It would not be exposing a truth. It would be grossly characterising Muslim countries by something very few do.
Keeping it real, means being specific and not being hyperbolic or over generalising.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But that's where we seem to be talking past each other...

Yes we are, let me explain...

If those self-serving motivations are the reason for a desire to "highlight and expose Russian propagandists", and the entity with the self-serving motivations are the ones who get to define "propagandist", it's perfectly valid to question their sincerity.

I am far, far, far, far, far, far, far more interested in the motivations of those telling lies or doing bad things than I am the motivations of those who tell the truth or do the good thing. There really aren't many times when I was concerned about the motivations of truth-tellers and do-gooders. As such I am just not interested in the "concerns" you repeatedly express, such as the "example" you crafted below.

Perhaps the best comparison I can give:

When you hear many of the hard-right republican talking points about how "Did you know that in Muslim countries they don't let women drive or vote, and they'll even execute people are LGBT or atheists!"

They may be "exposing" a truth that some people weren't aware of, but does anyone, for even a split second, think their actual motivation for fixating on that is a desire to protect rights of women, gays, or free-thinkers? Or is it merely a subversion attempt to drum up support for things like travel bans, invading middle eastern countries, and "Christianity-first" domestic policies?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I am far, far, far, far, far, far, far more interested in the motivations of those telling lies or doing bad things than I am the motivations of those who tell the truth or do the good thing. There really aren't many times when I was concerned about the motivations of truth-tellers and do-gooders.

In order for actions like arming Ukraine or intervening by funding them to be considered "the good thing" for the US, one would first have to explain how that's the "good thing" with respect to the stated reasons we were given for why people in the US were supposed to want to support the involvement.


If Russia presents a clear and present threat to the integrity of our elections by various meddling, and various forms of propaganda dissemination (done via agents, unwitting people parroting stuff back, or otherwise), how does arming Ukraine stop that?

Unless someone was gullible enough to believe that Ukraine could actually beat the Russian Federation into non-existence, or Ukraine was going to damage them in such a way that it would cut off Russia's internet access and lines of communication so that they could no longer disseminate their propaganda to the outside world, then I fail to see what issue this is solving with respect to US interests.

Even if by some miracle, Ukraine could fight back hard enough that Putin says "okay, y'know what, this isn't worth anymore, you win, we're quitting and going home now", Russia still has internet access correct?


If the stated "US interests" that were given for intervention are true, then why don't we just bomb them directly?

In what other situation would a similar problem be approached as "Wow, this other country is a major threat to Western Nations and threatens our democracies and usurps our elections.... boy I hope they attack one of their neighbors so we have an excuse to arm the people fighting against them"

 

[stevil]

In what other situation would a similar problem be approached as "Wow, this other country is a major threat to Western Nations and threatens our democracies and usurps our elections.... boy I hope they attack one of their neighbors so we have an excuse to arm the people fighting against them"

This post is ridiculous.

I understand you are trying to go full on MAGA. i.e. What's in it for me?

But if you standby and do nothing while aggressors slowly bully and pick off the weak links, then move on to the next conquest and the next one, and just slowly pick off the sheep, then you will find before long there are no sheep left.

If allies band together and all fight when one is attacked, the wolves will stop attacking and there will be peace.
If USA, and UK and others weren't protecting other nations, then there would be many more wars today than there are.
If you guys stop protecting others, then others will have a need to develop WMDs.
If you stop protecting others then you will not have so many loyal friends, when it comes to voting for initiatives in G8, and other world agreements you guys will have much less votes coming your way. You will have far less influence and the world will be much more of a dog eat dog place.

Problem is Trump is doing worst than nothing. He himself is now showing he wants to expand into Canada, Panama, Gaza, etc. Wants to join in the fun of bullying and conquering nations with less WMDs than your own country. Wants to join the ranks of China and Russia.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

BTW, if a person says, "Did you know that in Muslim countries they don't let women drive or vote". I wouldn't assume the person is right wing.

If they were making it within the context of a broader conversation about travel bans or "Why the US should back Israel over <insert Muslim country> here, then it would be safe to assume it's a right-wing talking point.

The reason why I used that comparison is because it's rooted in the same sort of theme. Feigning concern about something that one isn't really concerned about but merely using the circumstances as a sort of "self-serving altruism".

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed Crimea, and the Lindsey Grahams and John Boehners of the world were saying "Putin's a thug, and threatens democracy, we need to get weapons in the hands of the Ukrainians asap", Obama pulled the reigns and said "No, we're not going to escalate tensions with Russia", and even went as far as promising them "flexibility"

Did Obama Suggest 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After the 2012 Election?

In 2012, Barack Obama was overheard telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Putin after the election.

www.snopes.com

The left supported Obama's restraint, and labelled Lindsey Graham and Boehner as "war hawks" which they are (Graham, being heavily funded by defense contractors, never met a war he didn't like)

That all seemed to change after 2016.


Once it was perceived that "Russia helped the guy we don't like win", they'd been foaming at the mouth for 6 years to find some excuse to go after them, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine served as a "convenient opportunity" to advocate for things (they'd never advocated for previously) to signal their virtue.

Much like the neocons used 9/11 as an excuse to do the thing they'd already been wanting to do (which was invade the Middle East again)

They even used similar rhetoric "If you believe in liberty and democracy, you'll support this" kind of stuff...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This post is ridiculous.

I understand you are trying to go full on MAGA. i.e. What's in it for me?

But if you standby and do nothing while aggressors slowly bully and pick off the weak links, then move on to the next conquest and the next one, and just slowly pick off the sheep, then you will find before long there are no sheep left.

That used to be the standard position of the US-Democrats

"We shouldn't be injecting ourselves in military conflicts abroad if they don't negatively impact us"

Again, what changed? (apart from the prevailing thought that Russia helped Trump win)

If USA, and UK and others weren't protecting other nations, then there would be many more wars today than there are.
If you guys stop protecting others, then others will have a need to develop WMDs.

So I assume our check from New Zealand is in the mail then?

There's a bit of a dichotomy between this post and your previous one.

Before it was "it's not all about the US", now it's "the US has a duty to be the world police, because if they don't things will destabilize"

Which is it? Is the US military "special/better" or is it not?

 

[Bradskii]

In order for actions like arming Ukraine or intervening by funding them to be considered "the good thing" for the US, one would first have to explain how that's the "good thing" with respect to the stated reasons we were given for why people in the US were supposed to want to support the involvement.

Well, OK. I guess you're not interested in the moral aspect of it. You'd rather not consider whether a large country run by a thug can simply invade another country is morally acceptable or not. You'd not want to think about the ethics of the matter. And you'd skip on any responsibility that you might have to countries which are members of an organisation of which you are a founder member, an organisation which has pledged to support each other should any suffer aggression from an enemy. As regards that last point, maybe as Ukraine is not a member of that organisation you think that it doesn't apply.

So what should you consider, seeing that human rights, the rule of law and the morality of the situation aren't included.

Well, consider the Ukraine losing. Consider Putin in Kyiv. Consider the mass of the Russian army, plus their nuclear missiles right on Poland's border. Do you think think that wouldn't have any affect on Europe? And that that, in turn wouldn't affect the US? A single incursion across the border would see NATO forces and Russia at war. Guess what happens to everyones economy. Including yours.

Yeah, I know. It's an ugly argument. Support Ukraine to keep the price of eggs down. You'd think there'd be more to it than asking about what's in it for you. But that's literally what you just asked for.

 

[BPPLEE]

NATO boss lauds Trump’s leadership on Ukraine, tells Europe: ‘Get your act together’

“Europe wants to have a place at the table. Well, I told them, fight yourself a way to the table by coming up with concrete proposals,” said NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

nypost.com