Congress ready to take vote on TikTok ban but not on Ukraine funding.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

We need to also pull out of nato . Ukraine is most excellent example.
Keep those Ukraine funds here for those " other" places on the border where illegals are coming in.

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

That’s not what you said. Land disputes in Eastern Europe aren’t are problem, getting involved in them does nothing but deplete resources that could and should be used here at home.

Like it or not the majority of the world exists under the rule of law that the United States, Europe and the Soviet Union created at the end of World War 2. Without the normalcy of that system the economic order collapses.

Right now that system is under strain because of a number of factors. Climate changes are affecting agrarian economies in both North Africa as well as Central America. War in Ukraine is affecting food production and access across the globe. All of these are factors in the rise of global immigration. Removing ourselves from our responsibilities to the global system we created is both short sighted and lacking in courage.

What exactly do you think is going to happen if we leave the Ukrainian people in the lurch. What you are advocating will give a clear signal to every other despot in the world that they can do as they like with impunity. I for one would like to avoid the chaos that would bring.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

The most humane way would be a wall, claymores, mines, etc. Thousands of people die, are raped, sold into slavery, enter a contract that gets their families back home tortured. Sure, a few people may die trying to sneak in, but exponentially more would be saved by not trying in the first place.

The same thing could be accomplished without turning the border into East Berlin under the Stasi and the KGB.

Simply pass the new border bill and then you can legally start deporting the people who are here illegally and turn around the ones we’re catching at the border. Do that long enough and that might slow down the flow to just those who are legitimately seeking asylum.

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

What exactly do you think is going to happen if we leave the Ukrainian people in the lurch. What you are advocating will give a clear signal to every other despot in the world that they can do as they like with impunity. I for one would like to avoid the chaos that would bring.

They can fight and win, or lose, or end in a stalemate. I don’t care either way. We, we being Obama and a bunch of other corrupt politicians from both parties, should have never staged a coup in Kiev that sparked this series of events. Now we’ve got tens of thousands of dead Russians and Ukrainians to get a few connected people’s families rich, at the ultimate expense of the American taxpayer and lots of dead Europeans.

When you’re in a hole, stop fucking digging.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

They can fight and win, or lose, or end in a stalemate. I don’t care either way. We, we being Obama and a bunch of other corrupt politicians from both parties, should have never staged a coup in Kiev that sparked this series of events. Now we’ve got tens of thousands of dead Russians and Ukrainians to get a few connected people’s families rich, at the ultimate expense of the American taxpayer and lots of dead Europeans.

When you’re in a hole, stop fucking digging.

This is the one argument that i’ve seen you make that made me do some further research and rethink the issue. An argument can be made that the US and Europe are involved in supporting the Ukrainian revolution in 2014. But the inference that corrupt politicians of any stripe staged a coup is laughable. The people of Ukraine decided for themselves that they wanted to distance themselves from Russia and move closer to the rule of law and freedom of democracy in the European Union. I still believe that we should support the people and government of Ukraine in their efforts to defend themselves and restore their original national boundaries.

[Jacuzzme]

Yeah. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Nuland is on tape talking about it and a bunch of politician’s kids, including the current president’s, got lucrative no-show jobs with Ukrainian companies. I don’t know about you, but I always look for people with no experience whatsoever, who are so fucked up in their personal lives that they’re snorting cheese off the carpet, when looking to make a hire.

[1blackman1]

Uh huh.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Does anyone else find it just a little bit crazy that Congress is planning to take a vote on banning tik tok but can’t find it worthwhile to fund the Ukrainian people’s defense.

https://www.vox.com/politics/2409483...ess-pass-biden

While I haven't followed this closely Txdot, I'd question your analogy. The only people I've read about who are going to bat for TikTok are Rand Paul, a Libertarian Republican, and Donald Trump, who may have received campaign contributions from investors in TikTok. And Paul and Trump are against blindly sending money to Ukraine.

I think I line up with Paul, Trump and you on this, as far as TikTok is concerned.

My criticism of Biden's Ukraine policy isn't necessarily that we helped fund Ukraine's military, but that we haven't put any pressure on Ukraine to settle the madness. This war isn't going to end without compromise, or the total defeat of Ukraine. Biden and many Democrats and Republicans are happy to see Ukraine fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Russia's not going to be pushed out, regardless of how much money and how many armaments we send to Ukraine.

Furthermore, opinion polls from 2014 to 2021 in Crimea and the Donbas by western and Ukrainian organizations showed that the majority of people in occupied areas wanted to be affiliated with Russia, not Ukraine.

There's a face-saving way out of this -- let Russia take the areas it currently holds, and come up with an agreement that gives some assurance to Ukraine that Russia will stay out of the rest of the country, and some assurance to Russia than Ukraine won't join NATO. Biden and the State Department should have been pushing something like that long ago, instead of supporting Zelensky's illusion that he could retake all of eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

While I haven't followed this closely Txdot, I'd question your analogy. The only people I've read about who are going to bat for TikTok are Rand Paul, a Libertarian Republican, and Donald Trump, who may have received campaign contributions from investors in TikTok. And Paul and Trump are against blindly sending money to Ukraine.

I think I line up with Paul, Trump and you on this, as far as TikTok is concerned.

My criticism of Biden's Ukraine policy isn't necessarily that we helped fund Ukraine's military, but that we haven't put any pressure on Ukraine to settle the madness. This war isn't going to end without compromise, or the total defeat of Ukraine. Biden and many Democrats and Republicans are happy to see Ukraine fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Russia's not going to be pushed out, regardless of how much money and how many armaments we send to Ukraine.

Furthermore, opinion polls from 2014 to 2021 in Crimea and the Donbas by western and Ukrainian organizations showed that the majority of people in occupied areas wanted to be affiliated with Russia, not Ukraine.

There's a face-saving way out of this -- let Russia take the areas it currently holds, and come up with an agreement that gives some assurance to Ukraine that Russia will stay out of the rest of the country, and some assurance to Russia than Ukraine won't join NATO. Biden and the State Department should have been pushing something like that long ago, instead of supporting Zelensky's illusion that he could retake all of eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

Do you not see the similarities between Russia / Ukraine and Nazi Germany / The Sudetenland. Both countries that have decided to invade and occupy areas that hold native speakers that may want to be aligned with the invading country.

I’m not saying that Russia is the same as the nazi state but the principle is the same. Read up on the Munich Agreement and the Sudeten Crisis. Appeasing Putin is not the solution.

The Munich Agreement was an agreement concluded at Munich on 30 September 1938, by Nazi Germany, Great Britain, the French Republic, and Fascist Italy. The agreement provided for the German annexation of part of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland, where more than three million people, mainly ethnic Germans, lived. The pact is also known in some areas as the Munich Betrayal (Czech: Mnichovská zrada; Slovak: Mníchovská zrada), because of a previous 1924 alliance agreement and a 1925 military pact between France and the Czechoslovak Republic.

Much of Europe celebrated the Munich Agreement, as they considered it a way to prevent a major war on the continent. Adolf Hitler announced that it was his last territorial claim in Northern Europe. Today, the Munich Agreement is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement, and the term has become "a byword for the futility of appeasing expansionist totalitarian states."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudete...Sudeten_Crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

[Jacuzzme]

Related to above post, well worth the 10 minute read. https://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/11/

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Do you not see the similarities between Russia / Ukraine and Nazi Germany / The Sudetenland. Both countries that have decided to invade and occupy areas that hold native speakers that may want to be aligned with the invading country.

I’m not saying that Russia is the same as the nazi state but the principle is the same. Read up on the Munich Agreement and the Sudeten Crisis. Appeasing Putin is not the solution.

The Munich Agreement was an agreement concluded at Munich on 30 September 1938, by Nazi Germany, Great Britain, the French Republic, and Fascist Italy. The agreement provided for the German annexation of part of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland, where more than three million people, mainly ethnic Germans, lived. The pact is also known in some areas as the Munich Betrayal (Czech: Mnichovská zrada; Slovak: Mníchovská zrada), because of a previous 1924 alliance agreement and a 1925 military pact between France and the Czechoslovak Republic.

Much of Europe celebrated the Munich Agreement, as they considered it a way to prevent a major war on the continent. Adolf Hitler announced that it was his last territorial claim in Northern Europe. Today, the Munich Agreement is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement, and the term has become "a byword for the futility of appeasing expansionist totalitarian states."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudete...Sudeten_Crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

OK, Say we agreed with esteemed board member Winn Dixie that the primary reasons the North and the South split up in 1861 were states rights and tariffs. We don't, we both believe slavery was the culprit. But for the sake of argument assume WD's right.

Say instead of merely trading with the South, Britain and France had armed the South to the hilt. Wouldn't that be a better analogy as to what's happening now than Hitler and the Sudetenland?

At the time of the break up of the USSR, Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders never dreamed NATO would expand the way it has.

From an interview with Gorbachev in 2014:

The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

Another Gorbachev quote, from a 2008 article in Britain's mainstream newspaper The Independent, titled "Gorbachev: US Could Start a new Cold War"

Kohl (Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany), US Secretary of State James Baker and others assured me that NATO would not move an inch east. The Americans didn't stick to that, and the Germans didn't care. Maybe they even rubbed their hands at how well the Russians were ripped off. What did it bring? It's just that the Russians no longer trust Western promises.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Cold-War.html

The NSA archive at George Washington University provides lots documentation for western assurances about NATO enlargement. Quoting from the archive,

USA Secretary of State James Baker's famous "not one inch eastward" assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified USA, Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

Circling back to the headline in the Independent from 2008, "Gorbachev: US could start new Cold War," that's what happened. Putin wanted Russia to be part of NATO. But the military industrial complex in the USA needed an enemy to justify huge military spending.

Since the break up of the USSR, the only foreign incursions by Russia that I recall occurred in Soviet Republics and Syria. Their involvement in Syria has been small scale. We on the other hand have no qualms about sending soldiers halfway across the world to fight senseless wars in places like Iraq and Vietnam. And yeah, Ukraine is pretty senseless too. But it is on Russia's doorstop. Combine proximity with a little paranoia and you end up with a war. The idea that Putin's set on world wide domination, or annexing the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

OK, Say we agreed with esteemed board member Winn Dixie that the primary reasons the North and the South split up in 1861 were states rights and tariffs. We don't, we both believe slavery was the culprit. But for the sake of argument assume WD's right.

Say instead of merely trading with the South, Britain and France had armed the South to the hilt. Wouldn't that be a better analogy as to what's happening now than Hitler and the Sudetenland?

At the time of the break up of the USSR, Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders never dreamed NATO would expand the way it has.

From an interview with Gorbachev in 2014:

The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

Another Gorbachev quote, from a 2008 article in Britain's mainstream newspaper The Independent, titled "Gorbachev: US Could Start a new Cold War"

Kohl (Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany), US Secretary of State James Baker and others assured me that NATO would not move an inch east. The Americans didn't stick to that, and the Germans didn't care. Maybe they even rubbed their hands at how well the Russians were ripped off. What did it bring? It's just that the Russians no longer trust Western promises.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Cold-War.html

The NSA archive at George Washington University provides lots documentation for western assurances about NATO enlargement. Quoting from the archive,

USA Secretary of State James Baker's famous "not one inch eastward" assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified USA, Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

Circling back to the headline in the Independent from 2008, "Gorbachev: US could start new Cold War," that's what happened. Putin wanted Russia to be part of NATO. But the military industrial complex in the USA needed an enemy to justify huge military spending.

Since the break up of the USSR, the only foreign incursions by Russia that I recall occurred in Soviet Republics and Syria. Their involvement in Syria has been small scale. We on the other hand have no qualms about sending soldiers halfway across the world to fight senseless wars in places like Iraq and Vietnam. And yeah, Ukraine is pretty senseless too. But it is on Russia's doorstop. Combine proximity with a little paranoia and you end up with a war. The idea that Putin's set on world wide domination, or annexing the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Well done, You have provided a well thought out argument that made me stop and think about some of my preconceptions.

From Russia’s point of view I’m sure the advance of NATO and the European Union closer to its border is disconcerting. The reason why is obvious to me but maybe not to them. If I was a citizen in one of the old soviet bloc countries I think I would prefer to live in a country that has strong institutions, robust democracy, and strong corruption controls. All of which are requirements for entrance into the Eurozone. The alternative is a country riddled with corruption, oligarchs, the farce of fixed elections and the threat of jail or death if you want to express a different view point.

Regardless of the reasons that Russia invaded I think the reason why we should continue to support the Ukraine resistance is because our partners in NATO and the European Union are already supporting them. It behooves us to continue to provide a united front in response to Putin’s aggression.

Just my opinion. I’ll be voting for candidates which support our commitment to NATO and the Ukrainian people. In my mind that’s more important than shutting down Tiktok. That’s nothing more than a distraction from dealing with more important issues.

[txdot-guy]

I wanted to expound on my thoughts on Ukraine. The changes in Ukraine appear to be spontaneous. Read up on the Revolution of Dignity that occurred in Ukraine in 2013.

In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests known as "Euromaidan" began in response to President Yanukovych's decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia. Earlier that year the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) had overwhelmingly approved finalizing the agreement; Russia had pressured Ukraine to reject it. The scope of the protests widened, with calls for the resignation of Yanukovych and the Azarov government. Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of Russia and oligarchs, police brutality, human rights violations, and repressive anti-protest laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

Russia’s response was the invasion and Annexation of Crimea.

In February and March 2014, Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula, part of Ukraine, and then annexed it. This took place in the relative power vacuum immediately following the Revolution of Dignity. It marked the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa...krainian%20War.


I’m comfortable having the US play the role of France during the war of independence.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Tiny

OK, Say we agreed with esteemed board member Winn Dixie that the primary reasons the North and the South split up in 1861 were states rights and tariffs. We don't, we both believe slavery was the culprit. But for the sake of argument assume WD's right.

Say instead of merely trading with the South, Britain and France had armed the South to the hilt. Wouldn't that be a better analogy as to what's happening now than Hitler and the Sudetenland?

At the time of the break up of the USSR, Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders never dreamed NATO would expand the way it has.

From an interview with Gorbachev in 2014:

The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

Another Gorbachev quote, from a 2008 article in Britain's mainstream newspaper The Independent, titled "Gorbachev: US Could Start a new Cold War"

Kohl (Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany), US Secretary of State James Baker and others assured me that NATO would not move an inch east. The Americans didn't stick to that, and the Germans didn't care. Maybe they even rubbed their hands at how well the Russians were ripped off. What did it bring? It's just that the Russians no longer trust Western promises.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Cold-War.html

The NSA archive at George Washington University provides lots documentation for western assurances about NATO enlargement. Quoting from the archive,

USA Secretary of State James Baker's famous "not one inch eastward" assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified USA, Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

Circling back to the headline in the Independent from 2008, "Gorbachev: US could start new Cold War," that's what happened. Putin wanted Russia to be part of NATO. But the military industrial complex in the USA needed an enemy to justify huge military spending.

Since the break up of the USSR, the only foreign incursions by Russia that I recall occurred in Soviet Republics and Syria. Their involvement in Syria has been small scale. We on the other hand have no qualms about sending soldiers halfway across the world to fight senseless wars in places like Iraq and Vietnam. And yeah, Ukraine is pretty senseless too. But it is on Russia's doorstop. Combine proximity with a little paranoia and you end up with a war. The idea that Putin's set on world wide domination, or annexing the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I couldn't have said it any better myself, and I didn't. You've summed up my position much better than I did with my analogy of the situation. Good post.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

There’s no reason we can’t do both.



Trump’s border policy is illegal. That’s why we had all the lawsuits. To fix the issue we need new law. Why can’t congress man up and own it.

What was so illegal about Trump's Border Policy?

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I’m comfortable having NATO play the role of France during the war of independence.

And if our NATO partners would pay their share...