RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Tulsi Gabbard Formally Exits the Democrat Party

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/22 12:30 pm    ::: Tulsi Gabbard Formally Exits the Democrat Party Reply Reply with quote

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/tulsi-gabbard-leaves-democratic-party/index.html

Quote:
Former congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard announced on Tuesday that she is leaving the Democratic Party.

For Gabbard, the announcement is the culmination of years in which she has been increasingly at odds with the Democratic Party and its policies.

“I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party. It’s now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoking anti-white racism, who actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms enshrined in our Constitution,” Gabbard said in a video posted to social media. The announcement was made on the first episode of her new podcast, “The Tulsi Gabbard Show.”

Gabbard, who made history by becoming the first American Samoan and practicing Hindu in Congress following her election in 2012, also criticized what she said were Democrats’ “open border” policies and anti-police rhetoric.

The former congresswoman, who represented Hawaii’s 2nd district, has long been a unique and occasionally controversial voice in the Democratic Party.

As one of the Democratic presidential contenders in the crowded 2020 field, she touted herself as an Iraq War veteran and staked out a distinctly anti-interventionist foreign policy. On the campaign trail, she blamed US intervention in Latin America for creating instability that triggered the surge in migration across the southern US border and was a co-sponsor of several bills aimed at keeping migrant families together at the border.

And when Gabbard was running for president, Hillary Clinton suggested in an interview that she was being groomed to run as a third-party candidate and was a favorite of the Russians. Clinton suggested that the person she was talking about was a “Russian asset,” while not naming the Hawaii Democrat.

Gabbard filed a defamation lawsuit over the matter that she subsequently dropped in May 2020.

Gabbard endorsed Joe Biden after suspending her presidential campaign in 2020, but she has since been a vocal critic of the President and regularly appears on Fox News.

“President Biden campaigned on a message of unity, healing the partisan divide bringing the country together. He just gave a big speech saying supporters of President (Donald) Trump are the most extremist group in our country and a threat to our democracy. That’s half the country,” she said in her announcement video on Tuesday.

Gabbard also faced criticisms earlier this year from local Democrats who voted to condemn her “for participating in an event that raised funds that will harm Democrats across the country” after she spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

The former congresswoman did not indicate which party she would be affiliated with moving forward but called on “independent-minded Democrats” to join her in leaving the Democratic Party.


StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10979
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/22 1:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I predict Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema will be next to leave.

As for Tulsi, she's a DINO (Democrat In Name Only). Rolling Eyes



_________________
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." -- George Bernard Shaw
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/22 1:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

She's pro choice, so she can't be a Republican



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/12/22 9:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

StevenHW wrote:
I predict Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema will be next to leave.

As for Tulsi, she's a DINO (Democrat In Name Only). Rolling Eyes


It remains to be seen if Joe gets his piece of the pie for West Virginia like he was promised in exchange for his support of the Inflation Reduction Act. If not, he might just get voted out (when his term is up) before he gets the chance to flip.


scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8851
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/13/22 12:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
She's pro choice, so she can't be a Republican


Don’t worry, she’ll flip on that.



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/14/22 5:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I actually agree with some of her thinking (see quote below), but she's NOT gonna have luck with her general strategy of bucking systems.

Quote:
As one of the Democratic presidential contenders in the crowded 2020 field, she touted herself as an Iraq War veteran and staked out a distinctly anti-interventionist foreign policy. On the campaign trail, she blamed US intervention in Latin America for creating instability that triggered the surge in migration across the southern US border and was a co-sponsor of several bills aimed at keeping migrant families together at the border.


She ain't wrong about these things, but....I'd have to give the GOP way more of the blame for the Latin American thing, and CERTAINLY for the Iraqi debacle. And the Dems roll in this shit, too. However, as long as we're a 2-party system, those are her only (realistic, valid) options.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/14/22 6:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Democratic party used to be a place where a non-warmonger could flourish, but no longer. Both parties now back regime change in countries an ocean away and bomb dropping on countries an ocean away with equal enthusiasm. And both back places like Israel and Saudi Arabia also killing.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/15/22 9:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hillary Clinton is always right.

How long before she’s on Fox News spewing daddy Putin’s propaganda?



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/15/22 9:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Though she has points I might agree with, I neglected to add my total DISAGREEMENT with her more specific gripes:
Quote:
“I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party. It’s now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoking anti-white racism, who actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms enshrined in our Constitution,” Gabbard said in a video posted to social media. The announcement was made on the first episode of her new podcast, “The Tulsi Gabbard Show.”

The "elitist cabal of warmongers" certainly exists in our All-American Industrial War Complex, including members of both parties, but.....their lobbyists seem to lean far more on GOP legislators. Whatever.

"Cowardly" wokeness? If she hasn't yet been castigated for her Hindu background, she has some level of wokeness to thank for that. People always tend to object to 'wokeness' when it's inconvenient to their narratives.

"Racializing" in excess? "anti-white racism"? She conveniently ignores all the white-generated hateful racism that's STILL in the open today. Maybe its a way of 'winning over' constituents who might otherwise be happy to ostracize a brown Hindu girl.

If she wants to play the Hot Mess Card for attention, she'd certainly do better amongst Repugs like MTG, Gohmert, Bobert, etc. I can't imagine there's ANY Dems begging her to stay.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/16/22 6:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Pretty amazing how Democrats went from doing back flips over Obama's "mike drop moment" mocking Romney for saying Russia was our biggest threat in a 2012 debate, to spending 6 years obsessing about Russia. And attaching anyone who disagrees with any significant part of the mainstream American interventionist foreign policy narrative and even some domestic policy narratives, to working for Russia.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/16/22 8:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Russia's still not a threat to the US except to the extent that they still have working ICBMs.

And yeah, both larger parties have gotten far less accepting of any deviation from dogma.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/16/22 9:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Russia's still not a threat to the US except to the extent that they still have working ICBMs...


Russia has just shown us that their propensity to stir up trouble in eastern Europe and the resultant disruption in food and energy production is a huge threat to the US economy.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/16/22 10:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Pretty amazing how Democrats went from doing back flips over Obama's "mike drop moment" mocking Romney for saying Russia was our biggest threat in a 2012 debate, to spending 6 years obsessing about Russia. And attaching anyone who disagrees with any significant part of the mainstream American interventionist foreign policy narrative and even some domestic policy narratives, to working for Russia.


You're apparently forgetting that *things* change in 10 years, even 4 years. In 2012, at the point of that debate, China appeared to be our largest (potential) enemy, certainly economically. Where you get your "6 years obsessing about Russia" is beyond me....examples, please? As far as Russian interference in the way of mis/disinformation campaigns to skew elections....who knew that was real until it was? And now you're implying Obama was "working for Russia." A few specific examples of proof are necessary here - not following you here at all.

FrozenLVFan wrote:
pilight wrote:
Russia's still not a threat to the US except to the extent that they still have working ICBMs...


Russia has just shown us that their propensity to stir up trouble in eastern Europe and the resultant disruption in food and energy production is a huge threat to the US economy.


....and the Greater Planet*, for that matter. MANY more lives will be lost to starvation from the food chain disruption than from covid. And that's not even considering the nuclear element.

(*I've begun to ponder the thought that, if nuclear warfare is engaged, maybe the dreaded Nuclear Winter might be a therapeutic thing for our Climate-change plagued planet - cooling things down after it decimates the population Shocked )



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/19/22 12:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
(*I've begun to ponder the thought that, if nuclear warfare is engaged, maybe the dreaded Nuclear Winter might be a therapeutic thing for our Climate-change plagued planet - cooling things down after it decimates the population Shocked )


Oh yeah, nuclear war would be awesome! Think of all the trees that would grow. It would be the end of climate change for sure! This is the solution, why haven't we done this yet? Rolling Eyes


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/06/22 6:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
Pretty amazing how Democrats went from doing back flips over Obama's "mike drop moment" mocking Romney for saying Russia was our biggest threat in a 2012 debate, to spending 6 years obsessing about Russia. And attaching anyone who disagrees with any significant part of the mainstream American interventionist foreign policy narrative and even some domestic policy narratives, to working for Russia.


You're apparently forgetting that *things* change in 10 years, even 4 years. In 2012, at the point of that debate, China appeared to be our largest (potential) enemy, certainly economically.


What changed in Russia since 2012? And when Obama gave his rehearsed line he mentioned Al Qaeda, not China. But what changed in China since 2012?

Quote:
Where you get your "6 years obsessing about Russia" is beyond me....examples, please?


You want links to everything said by Democrats on Twitter, CNN, MSNBC over the last 6 years? Get a Twitter account and stop only watching Judy Woodruff - who I'm sure mentioned Russia in a negative light a large number of times over the last six years.

Quote:
As far as Russian interference in the way of mis/disinformation campaigns to skew elections....who knew that was real until it was? And now you're implying Obama was "working for Russia." A few specific examples of proof are necessary here - not following you here at all.


Romney said they were a threat and the Democrats laughed and now you defend the Democrats by saying "who knew?". Well, Romney did. I said Obama mocked Romney for saying Russia was our biggest threat. How do you get that is implying that Obama works for Russia?


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/06/22 6:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
pilight wrote:
Russia's still not a threat to the US except to the extent that they still have working ICBMs...


Russia has just shown us that their propensity to stir up trouble in eastern Europe and the resultant disruption in food and energy production is a huge threat to the US economy.


It was the United States that was in Ukraine backing protesters who ultimately had a coup. A real coup where they took over the parliament building and the government fled. And then Victoria Nuland was caught on tape telling Ukraine who we wanted as president and "F... the EU". When the new pro-west government outlawed Russia as a language, Russian speakers in Ukraine began to protest. Some were burned alive in Odessa. Others killed in Mariupol. Two "Oblasts" (sections of Ukraine) decided they wanted to be like US States - semi-autonomous in Ukraine. When they tried to do that Ukraine attacked. But a lot of Russian speakers in the army defected, bringing their equipment with them. So the two places wanting to be states were winning the civil war. Battlefield losses caused Ukraine to twice enter into peace negotiations (with Russia for some reason) supervised by France and Germany. But Ukraine never lived up to either agreement they signed. Probably because the USA told them not too and promised more and more weapons and training - even for the neo-Nazis (except from 2018 for some unknown period - possibly till 2/24/2022). Zelensky ran on getting peace in the civil war, but never did anything. It is claimed that both the neo-Nazis and the USA kept him from doing so. And the USA again stopped peace talks in March of 2022. Peace talks that would have resulted in Russia only keeping what it had before the war - Crimea.

The USA also knew that eastward expansion of NATO was something that would really upset Russia. But they did it anyway. And when they were NATOizing Ukraine for the civil war and future induction into NATO and Russia ended up attacking, the land of regime change and warmongering said "What??? This was unprovoked!".


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/06/22 9:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
You want links to everything said by Democrats on Twitter, CNN, MSNBC over the last 6 years? Get a Twitter account and stop only watching Judy Woodruff - who I'm sure mentioned Russia in a negative light a large number of times over the last six years.

Laughing Laughing Now, THAT'S rich! I'd heartily recommend YOU give up The Disinformation Media like Twitter (tiktok, facebook, etc., etc.) and visit more with Judy; you'd know what she REALLY reports about Russia. She does not deal in dis/misinformation....she ain't got time for that shit.

Now, here's a clear example of DIS-information (as it's VERY incomplete) and MIS-information that's highly skewed:

tfan wrote:
It was the United States that was in Ukraine backing protesters who ultimately had a coup. A real coup where they took over the parliament building and the government fled.......
The USA also knew that eastward expansion of NATO was something that would really upset Russia. But they did it anyway. And when they were NATOizing Ukraine for the civil war and future induction into NATO and Russia ended up attacking, the land of regime change and warmongering said "What??? This was unprovoked!".


It's incomplete as it gives no depth or scope to the REAL History of the Ukraine. Consider some facts: "Russia" as we now know it certainly had cultural and ethnic ties to the area for centuries. HOWEVER, they did not technically control or govern the Ukraine until about 100 years ago. Your abbreviated history implies that Ukraine's "coup" was an upstart indignity, an affront to Russia's righteous sovereignty, aided and abetted by the US. That's bullshit DISinformation.

That region has been controlled for centuries by various groups, including the Mongol horde, and even the Ottoman empire. Does that mean Turkey (historical seat of the Ottomans) has a right to claim back Ukraine for itself? Just cuz Russia was the last 'outsider' to govern Ukraine, and it was part of Putin's communist Soviet Union in his youth, doesn't mean Russia is justified in their 'reclamation' as they put forth.

More DISinformation is to put forth that somehow, America has been coaching or pushing the Ukraine - aiding isn't the same as controlling. The Ukrainians want their distance from Russia, having grown tired of the rampant corruption under Russia's watch.

Anyone who doubts Putin's motivation and rationale here is highly confused. He KNOWS he's not justified in an ethical way, demonstrated by the way he obfuscates and lies about who's attacking whom. But....it's a free country. You go on speaking up for Russia, if that's your belief.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8851
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/09/22 8:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Dear Tulsi, SUCK IT!



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/08/23 7:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
You want links to everything said by Democrats on Twitter, CNN, MSNBC over the last 6 years? Get a Twitter account and stop only watching Judy Woodruff - who I'm sure mentioned Russia in a negative light a large number of times over the last six years.

Laughing Laughing Now, THAT'S rich! I'd heartily recommend YOU give up The Disinformation Media like Twitter (tiktok, facebook, etc., etc.) and visit more with Judy; you'd know what she REALLY reports about Russia. She does not deal in dis/misinformation....she ain't got time for that shit.


What did Saint Judy have to say as to why Russia invaded Ukraine? Did she go with "unprovoked" like the corporate media?

Quote:
Now, here's a clear example of DIS-information (as it's VERY incomplete) and MIS-information that's highly skewed:

tfan wrote:
It was the United States that was in Ukraine backing protesters who ultimately had a coup. A real coup where they took over the parliament building and the government fled.......
The USA also knew that eastward expansion of NATO was something that would really upset Russia. But they did it anyway. And when they were NATOizing Ukraine for the civil war and future induction into NATO and Russia ended up attacking, the land of regime change and warmongering said "What??? This was unprovoked!".


It's incomplete as it gives no depth or scope to the REAL History of the Ukraine. Consider some facts: "Russia" as we now know it certainly had cultural and ethnic ties to the area for centuries. HOWEVER, they did not technically control or govern the Ukraine until about 100 years ago. Your abbreviated history implies that Ukraine's "coup" was an upstart indignity, an affront to Russia's righteous sovereignty, aided and abetted by the US. That's bullshit DISinformation.


Nice. Say what you think my mentioning of the USA-backed coup IMPLIES and argue against that strawman.

Quote:
That region has been controlled for centuries by various groups, including the Mongol horde, and even the Ottoman empire. Does that mean Turkey (historical seat of the Ottomans) has a right to claim back Ukraine for itself? Just cuz Russia was the last 'outsider' to govern Ukraine, and it was part of Putin's communist Soviet Union in his youth, doesn't mean Russia is justified in their 'reclamation' as they put forth.


I said the west knew that Russia would get upset about their eastward expansion of NATO and Ukraine and Georgia were especially upsetting:

Nyet means Nyet

Don't see how that gets you talking about the Ottomans. Russia doesn't want NATO on their border any more than the USA would have wanted Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact. And in this case to make the analogy more accurate, the rest of Latin America would have already been in the Warsaw Pact. The USA not wanting the Warsaw Pact on their border wouldn't mean that the USA wanted to claim Mexico. If the PBS folks hadn't been remiss in feeding Judy's teleprompter over the last year you'd know that Russia did not ask for control of Ukraine in pre-war negotiations or in March peace negotiations. They only wanted what they had - Crimea. And more important - they wanted NATO out of Ukraine.

Quote:
More DISinformation is to put forth that somehow, America has been coaching or pushing the Ukraine - aiding isn't the same as controlling. The Ukrainians want their distance from Russia, having grown tired of the rampant corruption under Russia's watch.


Joe Biden bragged on camera that he withheld $1 billion (or as he puts it "another loan guarantee") to Ukraine unless they fired a prosecutor that was prosecuting the company that was paying his son a huge sum to sit on their board of directors (imagine if that was Trump Jr. on that board). Was that "coaching" or "pushing"?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-dbG4pFfDbA" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Quote:
Anyone who doubts Putin's motivation and rationale here is highly confused. He KNOWS he's not justified in an ethical way, demonstrated by the way he obfuscates and lies about who's attacking whom. But....it's a free country. You go on speaking up for Russia, if that's your belief.


So many Putin mind readers in the west. Can you point me to where Putin said that Ukraine attacked Russia? Sounds like that could be ... DISinformation. I made a case for the USA "stirring up trouble in Eastern Europe". That isn't "speaking up for Russia". I am not justifying Russia invading Ukraine (but notably the western world thought it OK for the USA - on the other side of the earth - to invade Iraq), but it was something the west could have prevented - if they wanted to. The former leaders of Ukraine, Germany and France all admitted this year that the Minsk and Minsk 2 peace agreements they signed to allegedly end the Civil War in Ukraine were only a stalling tactic to allow more time for the USA to arm Ukraine. The west - directed mostly by the USA - wanted to weaken Russia (Loyd Austin) by having Ukraine fight to the last person (Lindsay Graham). And the latter part of that is sadly happening while the western media mostly ignores it and focuses only on any Ukrainian successes. And nuclear war is still a possibility if the west doesn't like the outcome they get from their current tactics.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/09/23 10:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
So many Putin mind readers in the west. Can you point me to where Putin said that Ukraine attacked Russia? Sounds like that could be ... DISinformation. I made a case for the USA "stirring up trouble in Eastern Europe". That isn't "speaking up for Russia". I am not justifying Russia invading Ukraine....

Your entire idiotic diatribe is "speaking up for Russia", as if Russia has no culpability in this disaster. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes As if *we* and all the western democracies are REALLY the responsible parties, cuz we didn't cater to what Russia thinks is right for THEM. Fuck them and what they don't want....must we also disband other NATO alliances, cuz Russia doesn't want it? Oh, and DO forgive the Ottoman reference....I realize actual history beyond last year is irrelevant to you.

Let's forget dear Judy - she's far too intellectual for your type anyway, you who can't name your precious sources. Talk to some real Ukrainians. I have. For YEARS now, as we have a large population of them in our community. Ask one their opinion of Russia and Putin. They'd totally disagree with your thinking. Just go back to your TikTok. Laughing



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9543



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/10/23 7:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
So many Putin mind readers in the west. Can you point me to where Putin said that Ukraine attacked Russia? Sounds like that could be ... DISinformation. I made a case for the USA "stirring up trouble in Eastern Europe". That isn't "speaking up for Russia". I am not justifying Russia invading Ukraine....


Your entire idiotic diatribe is "speaking up for Russia", as if Russia has no culpability in this disaster.


Talking about the culpability of the USA is - talking about the culpability of the USA. You don't appear to want the USA to be culpable at all and that is understandable.

Quote:
As if *we* and all the western democracies are REALLY the responsible parties, cuz we didn't cater to what Russia thinks is right for THEM.


This is more than the USA and their European followers versus Russia. There are a lot of dead Ukrainians and destroyed Ukrainian cities because the USA neocons had decided that using Ukraine (and sanctions) to weaken Russia was a good thing. And Loyd Austin even said it publicly.

Quote:
Fuck them and what they don't want....must we also disband other NATO alliances, cuz Russia doesn't want it?


Russia is not going to attack NATO countries (despite the "if we don't stop them now they will continue to London" rhetoric) since the USA is so much larger militarily. Ukraine should have been put into NATO as soon as they got a pro Western government - if the goal was to avoid a Ukraine/Russia war and not to start one. I believe that could have have been in 2004. And again in 2014, but one or two days after a USA-backed coup, the new pro-west government immediately reversed a 2012 law allowing other official languages in Ukraine if more than 10% of the population in the area spoke the language primarily. And that led to a civil war a few months later. So we ended up with a situation where the west has (so far) chosen not to fight, but instead to have Ukraine fight with western aid. But at the same time we give Ukraine only enough weapons to continue fighting for some amount of time, but not enough to win. I don't believe they have yet received any non-Soviet tanks. We currently have a number of countries saying they will send non-Soviet tanks, but they don't want to be the only ones doing so. Zelensky was in Washington DC and had a great reception. "A modern Churchhill". But while he was asking for among other things, tanks, he only got 50 Bradley "fighting vehicles" instead. Better than nothing, but why not tanks? And why only 50 Bradleys? Wikipedia shows 4500 Bradley vehicles somewhere with USA forces and another 2,000 in storage.

Quote:
Oh, and DO forgive the Ottoman reference....I realize actual history beyond last year is irrelevant to you.


I linked to a 2008 cable/memo and talked about Minsk and Minsk 2 from 2014 and 2015, but I only look at history from 2022? I don't see how the Ottoman Empire is relevant. If that was motivated by a 2021 speech from Putin that the west characterizes as him making a case for Russia absorbing Ukraine, that appears to be a neocon spin. The actual text talks about their history in the context of working together in the present - allies, not enemies - and resisting both the USA and western Ukrainians trying to pull them apart.

Quote:
Let's forget dear Judy - she's far too intellectual for your type anyway,


Too bad she had a career reading the news. She should have written for The Atlantic or the like. Judy is on Twitter. You should join to read her commentary. It is encouraging that you place a value on intellectualism.

Quote:
you who can't name your precious sources.


Since you didn't ask me to provide any source, this comment makes no sense. Are you looking for Fiona Hill and Angela Stent reporting that the west sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to scuttle March 2022 peace talks between Ukraine and Russia? Angela Merkel admitting that the Minsk and Minsk 2 agreements she oversaw were only to buy more time for the USA to arm Ukraine? Or France's Francois Hollande doing the same? Former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko doing the same? And the USA had to have thought more arms and a phony peace agreement was the way to go. But nothing new about that position. Or how about Lindsay Graham calling for weapons for Ukraine and saying that they will "fight to the last person". Which is another way of saying that they will die. Die for the desires of thousands of USA neocons whose only job is to scheme about wars to start and revolutions to fund and to plot against and demonize countries who have natural resources but refuse to submit fully to USA desires. And that doesn't appear to bother Graham at all.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HkbwZCqn7BY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Quote:
Talk to some real Ukrainians. I have. For YEARS now, as we have a large population of them in our community. Ask one their opinion of Russia and Putin. They'd totally disagree with your thinking. Just go back to your TikTok. Laughing


Since I was talking about the actions of the USA, their opinions of Russia don't seem applicable. But I know a Ukrainian immigrant and she and her (non-English speaking and stuck in the USA) mother are from the Donbas that is on the other side of the Ukrainian civil war (were fighting to be a "state", not a separate country). They speak Russian as their primary language as most of the people in that region do. I remember her mentioning Azov (Nazi group that Congress tried not to fund in 2015 and chose not to fund in 2018) once in a text and I said "who?" And she replied something about "terrorists".

The place where prominent commentators post their opinions is Twitter, not TikTok.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/11/23 1:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ok. There's some silly semantics happening here.
tfan wrote:
Talking about the culpability of the USA is - talking about the culpability of the USA. You don't appear to want the USA to be culpable at all and that is understandable.

You're abusing the term "culpable" in this context. IFF you really believe USA is culpable/RESPONSIBLE for Ukrainian deaths, then you certainly must believe USA is culpable/RESPONSIBLE for civilian deaths, say....in France or Britain during WW2, as Americans fought to destroy Hitler's forces. To protect Ukraine and support them is NOT culpability in that disaster. The disaster did not begin until Russia's initial aggression.

tfan wrote:
This is more than the USA and their European followers versus Russia. There are a lot of dead Ukrainians and destroyed Ukrainian cities because the USA neocons had decided that using Ukraine (and sanctions) to weaken Russia was a good thing. And Loyd Austin even said it publicly.

We obviously interpret his words differently:
Quote:

That message was delivered most clearly on Monday, when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told reporters after a trip to Ukraine’s capital city of Kyiv that “we want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

A National Security Council spokesperson said that Austin’s comments were consistent with what the US’ goals have been for months – namely, “to make this invasion a strategic failure for Russia.”

IMO, "YES!", Russia MUST be weakened and thwarted BECAUSE IT BEGAN AN INVASION OF THE UKRAINE. The USA didn't impose aggravating sanctions that LED to Russia's actions, they were in RESPONSE to Russian's aggression. You apparently believe that, since USA has a presence and an influence in the Ukraine, Russia is justified in the killings?

tfan wrote:
....But while he was asking for among other things, tanks, he only got 50 Bradley "fighting vehicles" instead. Better than nothing, but why not tanks? And why only 50 Bradleys? Wikipedia shows 4500 Bradley vehicles somewhere with USA forces and another 2,000 in storage.


Soo....you DO believe our military support should only be expanded?? Now I'm confused.

tfan wrote:
Quote:
Let's forget dear Judy - she's far too intellectual for your type anyway,

Too bad she had a career reading the news. She should have written for The Atlantic or the like. Judy is on Twitter. You should join to read her commentary. It is encouraging that you place a value on intellectualism.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Now I KNOW you don't 'know' Judy.....you're confusing her with some of the "Titz 'n Teeth" bimbos on Fox, etc. who can barely read a teleprompter. Judy was a Driving Force on The Newshour, creating objective news projects AND presenting the news with class. She had amazing credentials in journalism. AND, being publicly funded, PBS was not a shill for Corporate America, as all the others are.
Despite her (and other fine minds) having a presence on Twitter, I shall remain steadfast in my abstinance thereof: Twitter has never been anything more than a foul cesspool of evil, imo, and even the gems from people like Judy cannot make it any better.
tfan wrote:
Since I was talking about the actions of the USA, their opinions of Russia don't seem applicable.

And whose opinions of Russia might be MORE applicable in this conversation? When I talk with (many!) Ukrainians, their hatred of Russia and Putin bespeaks decades of living in that geo-political mess - which is why they've emigrated.

tfan wrote:
The place where prominent commentators post their opinions is Twitter, not TikTok.

Again....any gems of wisdom on Twitter are drowned out by the clamor of the idiotic masses, the morally depraved 'influencers', and the self-serving egomaniacs. Good luck with that! Cool



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin