Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[Terthna]

You aren't wrong that there are people who want to completely paper over any problems in the West, or any criticism of Ukraine's gov (no matter how justified), as with accusations of supporting Russia against any complainers.

However, the fact is Russia is the one who began this aggression (yes, I know you and others think the Maidan justifies this/excuses this conflict) and it is Russia who is engaging in nuclear terrorism by using nuclear power plants as artillery bases/fucked around and made Chernobyl even worse (UXOs on top of rads now).

People simping for Russia because 'WEF owns the west/Russia based' bullshit are either gullible fools, idiots, or people who get paid for it.

There is a difference between rightly criticizing issues where anti-corruption measures are being removed/ignored due to 'war-time' propaganda (what Rand Paul was worried about in the aid package, when he requested oversight mechanisms), and simping for Russia because they buy Russian lies/just hate the (current) west that much (what a few idiots who are letting hatred of the WEF/Soros/ Schwab override better judgement about self-defense).

Russia is not, and never will be, the good guy in this fight; it doesn't matter what domestic issues are going on, none will change that.

You're not wrong; but if you actually read what I've posted, I've only ever advocated a more nuanced take on what's been going on in Ukraine during and since the coup. Blaming everything on the Russians may feel good, but it isn't congruent with reality; they're not the only ones at fault here.

Again, I want to stress that I am not saying that they are without fault; they are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what prompted them. I'm just saying we shouldn't ignore the fact that they were indeed given a prompt as a result of the actions of America, and their allies.

So Rand Paul is a simp for Russia for wanting oversight mechanisms in the US aid packages?

Maybe dial back your rhetoric a bit and actually look at what the objections people have about stuff related to Ukraine, instead of labeling anyone worried about aid oversight as a Russian simp.

I mean seriously , when you jump on people and attack them for stuff like that, you do Russia's job for them by making it it's even harder to have any sort of nuanced or rational discourse in the West about how best to make sure the money going to Ukraine actually help's people there, instead of ending up on the black market or funneled into Woke NGO's that don't actually do shit for Ukraine.

Marduk is a Polish Nationalist. He does not want what's best for America, or any other nation; he want's what he thinks is best for Poland, and thanks to his admittedly historically justified hatred of Russia, that includes wiping them off of the face of the Earth. He think's we're so close to doing that for him he can taste it, and so considers anything that might turn us away from that path to be "simping" for Russia.

 

[Bacle]

Unfortunately he is. Not because of that little event when he wanted more oversight (though this can very well be part of it, as it is a trade-off of delays vs oversight), but because of his other comments, which demonstrates the strange correlation i've pointed out.

Rand Paul echoes Putin's talking points on Ukraine while arguing with Blinken over Russia's motives for invading

Though Paul said there was no justifying Russia's invasion, he also parroted Putin's rhetoric about NATO and Ukraine's history.

www.businessinsider.com

Did you even fucking read the article, or did you just like the headline that confirmed your bias?

Because I read it, and and Sen. Paul specifically said that the invasion was not justified, even if they're are explanations for it.

And he is not wrong that Ukraine was part of the Warsaw Pact/USSR, and part of Russia before that. I mean in many ways, this war could be seen as the Ukrainian war of independence, because an 'independent Ukraine' hadn't really existed since...well, at least since before the USSR formed, and I'm not sure it had since the time of Kyiv being a large city state.

The talking points Paul 'echo'd', as the paper says, are more like historical facts that unfortunately don't play to the west's preferred narrative, and acknowledge the Russian point of view (again, without justifying the invasion, just explaining why it happened).

It is clear you have a serious issue reading nuance, or even acknowledging nuance, if it isn't anti-Russia enough for your tastes. Anyone who questions whether Ukraine or NATO is pure as the driven snow seems to be a 'Russian simp' in your eyes, even if their reasons come down to wanting accountability for the aid the US is sending.

You're not wrong; but if you actually read what I've posted, I've only ever advocated a more nuanced take on what's been going on in Ukraine during and since the coup. Blaming everything on the Russians may feel good, but it isn't congruent with reality; they're not the only ones at fault here.

Again, I want to stress that I am not saying that they are without fault; they are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what prompted them. I'm just saying we shouldn't ignore the fact that they were indeed given a prompt as a result of the actions of American, and their allies.

I've read what you posted, and I do not consider you a 'simp' for Russia, just a bit to jaded about the West in this issue.

Nothing that happened around the Maidan justifies the nuclear terrorism Russia is engaging in, nor does it justify the invasion. All the moral high-ground Russia may have had about the Maidan went up in smoke when their pet rebels downed that airliner.

Marduk is a Polish Nationalist. He does not want what's best for America, or any other nation; he want's what he thinks is best for Poland, and thanks to his admittedly historically justified hatred of Russia, that includes wiping them off of the face of the Earth. He think's we're so close to doing that for him he can taste it, and so considers anything that might turn us away from that path to be "simping" for Russia.

Oh, I'm well aware of Marduk's situation.

He dislikes anything that might threaten the NATO nuclear umbrella over his ass, or anything that doesn't paint anyone who has questions about corruption in Ukraine as a 'Russia simp'.

I mean I get it, for the Poles that's an understandable knee-jerk reaction. But it makes nuanced or rational discussions about problems in Ukraine harder to have, because if you don't say NATO and Ukraine as pure as driven snow in this situation, you are a 'Russia simp' in his eyes.

Doesn't help he's a mod either, because otherwise we could just put him on ignore.

 

[Marduk]

Did you even fucking read the article, or did you just like the headline that confirmed your bias?

Because I read it, and and Sen. Paul specifically said that the invasion was not justified, even if they're are explanations for it.

And he is not wrong that Ukraine was part of the Warsaw Pact/USSR, and part of Russia before that. I mean in many ways, this war could be seen as the Ukrainian war of independence, because an 'independent Ukraine' hadn't really existed since...well, at least since before the USSR formed, and I'm not sure it had since the time of Kyiv being a large city state.

The talking points Paul 'echo'd', as the paper says, are more like historical facts that unfortunately don't play to the west's preferred narrative, and acknowledge the Russian point of view (again, without justifying the invasion, just explaining why it happened).

It is clear you have a serious issue reading nuance, or even acknowledging nuance, if it isn't anti-Russia enough for your tastes. Anyone who questions whether Ukraine or NATO is pure as the driven snow seems to be a 'Russian simp' in your eyes, even if their reasons come down to wanting accountability for the aid the US is sending.

Funny how you bring up the totally neutral selection of the historical facts he mentioned... while you know damn well that he wasn't giving a history lesson there, ignoring the context and the parts that can't be made to look neutral by stripping them of context.
This is a much spicier and harder to handwave away part of his commentary:

The GOP senator cited Russia's qualms with Kyiv's NATO ambitions, which have not advanced in 14 years, and accused the Biden administration of "beating the drums to admit Ukraine" to the alliance.

This does indicate that even if he isn't an outright Russia sympathizer, he did certainly fall for the "it's all NATO fault of hypothetical NATO expansion" propaganda line that was pushed by Russia... until it ceased to be effective and/or useful enough.

 

[Bacle]

Funny how you bring up the totally neutral selection of the historical facts he mentioned... while you know damn well that he wasn't giving a history lesson there, ignoring the context and the parts that can't be made to look neutral by stripping them of context.
This is a much spicier and harder to handwave away part of his commentary:

This does indicate that even if he isn't an outright Russia sympathizer, he did certainly fall for the "it's all NATO fault of hypothetical NATO expansion" propaganda line that was pushed by Russia... until it ceased to be effective and/or useful enough.

No, this is you again exaggerating shit, pretending NATO is pure as driven snow, and acting like anyone who wants into NATO is owed a membership.

For one, after the fuck up of invading Iraq, I cannot truly say I blame other nations for being sus about US/NATO ambitions/rhetoric. Ukraine had independent security agreements as a condition of giving the nukes back to Russia after the Wall fell; those should have been enough, no need for NATO, but Putin went full retard because he's terminally ill.

What Sen. Paul said about US trying to beat the drum of getting Ukraine into NATO for years isn't wrong, either.

But then again, I guess for you anyone who doesn't want to exterminate Russia as a nation and ethnicity is a 'Russia simp', so not sure what point there is to anyone trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[King Arts]

Why should foreigners invest in your country if they can't own anything? Hello North Korea.
I'm not saying they should get shit for free. Or even with a discount. Hell, have them pay higher taxes than citizens even. But then they aren't "sharing in the bounty of your land", it's a fair deal, no different than selling oil, iron ore, or whatever. Don't care if he will help defend the land, the money he pays will help either way.
If you just take stuff from foreign investors, none will come in the future. They will go invest elsewhere, and you will be sitting there, wondering why other countries are richer than yours.

Well again, you have to weigh the pros and the cons. Generally treating all foreigners like shit is a bad idea, because it will strain relations with their nations. However if the pros are worth it and you want to take the land to either spite that nation, or get out of it's grip then it can be worth it.

But which church
You basically need a mandatory, state run religion for that to not get ridiculous, and a free people don't exactly have a reason to want that.
I think Middle Ages have demonstrated well enough what happens to churches who get to take state power for granted, and how it's all around shitty both for countries and churches in question.

That's not true, a free people can have a state run church? The people chose they want to have the religion have actual power they should be free to do so. Many times secularism was imposed by force by either foreign influence, or elites.

You're not gonna out-bid democrats in state handouts to indebted college graduates, forget it.
This is a roundabout subsidy for colleges, and you know what they favor ideologically.
Want to be clever with state power, make them lose money in favor of students in that deal, not taxpayers.

It could be done. Democrats aren't interested in actually giving out handouts and removing the student's debts. Because once they do then they no longer have that lever. At most they will rarely forgive portions of the debt like Biden only forgiving 10,000. But if a Republican decided yes ALL current debt is forgiven that would outbid the democrats it would fuck them up.

You need to think your ideas through better. Leftist Disney bad, fuck their property rights, but leftist colleges, fine, have your money, fuck the taxpayers?
>nationalized
See, the problem with that is that then the politicians get to run the thing. And you bloody exactly know that they would be no better at it at all. Possibly worse.
Disney's financial rights aren't the source of any problem, only a second order one at worst.
The real problems are in areas of quite less clear property rights territory, like diversity policy according to law and courts, ESG scores etc, which with some interpretations could be treated as violations of shareholder rights or such in themselves.
But hey, the very government which would run the hypothetically nationalized assets is the hand behind protecting, allowing or even pushing these kinds of stupid in the first place, to the point that Disney might have serious problems with the government if they weren't doing the stupid they are doing.

I don't care if it's the government itself directly ruling it. If you are so against the "government" running things just have the government remove the property from the current owners and give it to new owners. That has been what historically was done. Kings would take away lands and titles from disloyal nobles, execute them. Then give those titles and riches to loyal nobles, or elevate others to be new nobles. I'm against property rights, where we allow an impenetrable shield over the wealth of disloyal elements. I'm consistent in this because I dislike many rights. I don't believe in rights that everyone has, it will lead to failure what we consider rights should be reserved for good citizens, the people in the nation agreed to work together and watch each other's back to make sure their wealth is safe and that the rights they like are safe. But those rights don't apply to traitors and hostile foreigners.

Ethically, you are conservative, sure.

But you lack any kind of understanding of how your proposed policies about nationalization, more government control, theocracy, etc, would actually play out.

None of it would play out well. Nationalizing any industry is bad, for the same reason that nationalizing all industries is bad. Sure, it's less destructive than all, but it's still completely negative.

There's two main reasons that over the last thirty years, pretty much all of the big businesses have shifted into the leftist camp. The first and largest is because the universities that train the 'elite' are all now hardcore leftist training camps, so your leadership cadre from the Ivy League is getting taught not just leftist politics, but the the post-modern philosophy and theology that undergirds modern leftism.

That's because conservatives stupidly went for the "small gubmit good" meme. We want a strong central state a powerful army, police, and intelligence service but it has to be staffed by loyal reliable people. The same for people in other positions of power. Saying that something is "illegitimate" then doing nothing when the other side fills it with wealth, weapons, legal authority is useless.

The second is that the steady increase in government regulatory power and entrenchment of leftists within government bureaucracy, has made it so that using the power of government against your business rivals is definitively the easier model to business success, instead of creating a superior product at a better price.

Combine these with leftist values encouraging going to daddy government to solve your problems, and you end up with the increasingly corrupt business environment we now see.

That's already going on in your unregulated bussiness utopia. Except the leftests are the ones who managed to take over, so fuck your ideas when they don't work. They just concede ground to the other side. You just are arguing we follow the rino playbook and follow the rules against the other side, instead of trying to go and use the levers of state power against them.

The big question for you then is this:

How would nationalizing a corporation controlled by Ivy-League indoctrinated leftist businessmen, to instead be controlled by Ivy-League indoctrinated government bureaucrats, help anything?

Conversely, the model of getting the government out of business matters as much as possible, is based around the concept that allowing 'get woke go broke' to have companies go broke, and their competitors to defeat them, has shown that it works at least sometimes. As examples, the failure of 'Batgirl' to the point where they didn't even bother releasing it, and the success of Top Gun: Maverick, that at least approached demonstrating more traditional values.

Fundamentally, the political arm of American conservativism is based around recognition that you do not want to concentrate more power into the hands of government, because that guarantees that over time, it will become more corrupt, and make it harder to root that corruption out. This ideology is based out of a Biblical understanding of human nature.

Anyone who claims to be conservative or on the political right in America, and favors enlarged government, government bailouts, increased regulation, whatever, shows that they do not understand core tenets of conservatism.

What? What are you talking about how is modern conservativism in anyway biblical? Allowing the rich to do everything to sate their greed and follow mammon is against the Bible. If anything the Bible has things you would call socialist, first off it doesen't give rights let alone acknowledge the existance of corporations, second the poor were aloud the go to farms and literally graze and eat the fruits off it as much as they want. But what is most relavent to this discussion with debt. EVERY 40 YEARS THE YEAR OF JUBILEE WIPED OUT ALL DEBT. So please don't tell me your heretical protestant work ethic is the way Jesus, and God and the Israelites intended society to be run, when they used policies that if we implemented in the modern day you would piss and moan about being socialism.

 

[Marduk]

No, this is you again exaggerating shit, pretending NATO is pure as driven snow, and acting like anyone who wants into NATO is owed a membership.

And again you are missing the point.
NATO is pure as driven snow here, because the fundamental part of the nature of westphalian sovereignty of states is that whether a sovereign country gets to be part of NATO, it's a matter between that country and NATO members. If third parties get to have a veto over that, or worse, even mere consideration of that, then it means either that candidate country or NATO members aren't really sovereign, because other, more important countries get the last say over their foreign policy.
And it fits extremely well with Russian government's now more open statements of opinion about the sovereignty of that particular country.
Of course no one is owed a NATO membership, but it's solely NATO's decision who to let join NATO, not anyone else's.

For one, after the fuck up of invading Iraq, I cannot truly say I blame other nations for being sus about US/NATO ambitions/rhetoric. Ukraine had independent security agreements as a condition of giving the nukes back to Russia after the Wall fell; those should have been enough, no need for NATO, but Putin went full retard because he's terminally ill.

Georgia 6 years earlier was already a warning sign that Putin has ambitions in rebuilding some more or less weird form of Russian empire.

What Sen. Paul said about US trying to beat the drum of getting Ukraine into NATO for years isn't wrong, either.

But then again, I guess for you anyone who doesn't want to exterminate Russia as a nation and ethnicity is a 'Russia simp', so not sure what point there is to anyone trying to convince you otherwise.

Why are you putting such extreme statements in my mouth?

Marduk is a Polish Nationalist. He does not want what's best for America, or any other nation; he want's what he thinks is best for Poland, and thanks to his admittedly historically justified hatred of Russia, that includes wiping them off of the face of the Earth. He think's we're so close to doing that for him he can taste it, and so considers anything that might turn us away from that path to be "simping" for Russia.

That incidentally brings up a great question that i think is very undervalued on a forum where most claim to be right wingers.
Is weakening the power and influence of Russia in the world as much as possible in USA's interest? Instead of trying to play pseudo-moralistic blame ju-jitsu over this like so many do, why not try to answer this question?
In the likely potential significant future conflicts USA may have to deal wtih, like China or Iran, what are the chances Russia would be wielding as much or as little power it happens to have at that point on the same side as USA?

 

[Bacle]

Why are you putting such extreme statements in my mouth?

It's no more extreme, or much different a rhetorical tactic, than you claiming Rand Paul is a Russia simp.

Want to have calm, rational discussions on this matter?

Then stop acting like questions about whether Ukraine still has corruption issues is 'simping for Russia'. Because people may just want to make sure the aid going over there is actually going where it is supposed to, and to whom it's supposed to.

 

[Marduk]

Well again, you have to weigh the pros and the cons. Generally treating all foreigners like shit is a bad idea, because it will strain relations with their nations. However if the pros are worth it and you want to take the land to either spite that nation, or get out of it's grip then it can be worth it.

"Depends on which foreigners and from where" is a far more nuanced position than "foreigners shouldn't get to own land".

That's not true, a free people can have a state run church? The people chose they want to have the religion have actual power they should be free to do so. Many times secularism was imposed by force by either foreign influence, or elites.

In theory... In practice though, what free people not only want to have a state run church, but also want to be ruled by said church? And if they do, what if they change their minds?
What will the state run church in charge have to say about it?

It could be done. Democrats aren't interested in actually giving out handouts and removing the student's debts. Because once they do then they no longer have that lever. At most they will rarely forgive portions of the debt like Biden only forgiving 10,000. But if a Republican decided yes ALL current debt is forgiven that would outbid the democrats it would fuck them up.

And what will stop them from voting democrats because Republicans not only are still racist and homophobic, but also are dumb enough to give loads of money to people who hate them, as colleges double down on indoctrination because their services don't need to be worth jack shit in the end?

I don't care if it's the government itself directly ruling it. If you are so against the "government" running things just have the government remove the property from the current owners and give it to new owners. That has been what historically was done. Kings would take away lands and titles from disloyal nobles, execute them. Then give those titles and riches to loyal nobles, or elevate others to be new nobles. I'm against property rights, where we allow an impenetrable shield over the wealth of disloyal elements. I'm consistent in this because I dislike many rights. I don't believe in rights that everyone has, it will lead to failure what we consider rights should be reserved for good citizens, the people in the nation agreed to work together and watch each other's back to make sure their wealth is safe and that the rights they like are safe. But those rights don't apply to traitors and hostile foreigners.

Obviously it follows from very practical facts that the dead or imprisoned traitors cannot run anything. But ordinary western systems of property rights are perfectly capable of accounting for such facts. The problem with traitors is that they are traitors, not that they are rich.

That's because conservatives stupidly went for the "small gubmit good" meme. We want a strong central state a powerful army, police, and intelligence service but it has to be staffed by loyal reliable people.

North Korea is not a good example to follow, yet it checks all those boxes.
Strong central states tend to suck economically, and in long term that gives you large but backwards army and a country mocked by the rest of the world for its poverty and lack of freedom.

Then stop acting like questions about whether Ukraine still has corruption issues is 'simping for Russia'.

That's a useless rhetorical question existing to grind an axe on. Every single country in the world has corruption. Some more, some less. Next question?

Because people may just want to make sure the aid going over there is actually going where it is supposed to, and to whom it's supposed to.

Which is perfectly reasonable, if not for the context of this happening in the middle of war, and the trade-offs being considered involving delays. What good is making sure about all that, if you may well realize after all this careful consideration that your aid is irrelevant now because the war was already decided one way or another, not necessarily your way?

 

[Bacle]

That's a useless rhetorical question existing to grind an axe on. Every single country in the world has corruption. Some more, some less. Next question?

I support Ukraine, but even I remember when the name 'Ukraine' was only slightly less synonymous with corruption than 'Russia'.

So yes, I think Sen. Paul's desire to have oversight on US aid going to Ukraine was a reasonable request, and the only reason to oppose it is if people do not want anyone looking to closely at where that aid actually ends up.

Which is perfectly reasonable, if not for the context of this happening in the middle of war, and the trade-offs being considered involving delays. What good is making sure about all that, if you may well realize afterwards that your aid is irrelevant now because the war was already decided one way or another, not necessarily your way?

You act like it's an option of having oversight on US aid, or letting Russia win.

Which shows precisely why the oversight should be there; so people cannot use 'war-time hysteria' to paper over problems that should be addressed.

And if nothing else, don't you think it'd be good to make sure high end US/NATO tech isn't getting sold to the Russians, and have oversight mechanisms to ensure our tech meant to help Ukraine isn't instead lining the pockets of a corrupt supply clerk?

 

[mrttao]

b) Russian establishment has enough sense to realize that there is a slight chance that USA would have enough guts to take retaliation in form of nuclear armed Poland, Georgia, Romania, and perhaps even Ukraine. So any satisfaction of fucking with US ME policy for the hell of it would be compensated by Russia's own near-geostrategy getting messed up for good.

This kind of calculus requires a healthy leadership that can see a good future for themselves. Not ones who feel their days are numbered.

Also, if the leadership is decapitated it will be up to individual military commanders.

There is also precedence for it. When the USSR fell a bunch of suitcase nukes disappeared to unknown buyers

 

[King Arts]

"Depends on which foreigners and from where" is a far more nuanced position than "foreigners shouldn't get to own land".

Well foreigners could own land, they just would not have a "right" to it. We can kick foreigners out, we can't really do that to our citizens.

In theory... In practice though, what free people not only want to have a state run church, but also want to be ruled by said church? And if they do, what if they change their minds?
What will the state run church in charge have to say about it?

What free people want to have a supreme court that tells them what is and is not the law? If they chose the court, what if they change their minds? The same argument many use against religious authorities also applies to secular authorities, the differance is that at least in theory if the religious government is doing the right thing, their laws are divinely inspiried so there is an extra reason to obey them. After all why should I give a damn what the majority, or what the strongest government says if I can get away with it? At least if it's a religious justification I can believe that God knows what is just and he can know and punish everything.

And what will stop them from voting democrats because Republicans not only are still racist and homophobic, but also are dumb enough to give loads of money to people who hate them, as colleges double down on indoctrination because their services don't need to be worth jack shit in the end?

There might be some that are indoctrinated like that. But what about the others who are simply young, in debt and bitches on the democrat plantation? Seriously there might be some there who owe money and think that the democrats are better for them financially, but not care for all that other crap? In that case a bribe would be the smart thing to do. Also the problem with colleges could be solved if we had free state run colleges, that could fire any teacher that went against the government. That way those that are anti conservative could be purged. It may be expensive but education is becoming more needed in the past it was ok if the majority of the working population could not read, then an 8th grade education was needed, now we need 12. you don't think it's likely with advancing society and technology mandatory colleges won't be needed for many jobs?

Obviously it follows from very practical facts that the dead or imprisoned traitors cannot run anything. But ordinary western systems of property rights are perfectly capable of accounting for such facts. The problem with traitors is that they are traitors, not that they are rich.

No, modern western property rights, would allow the family of traitors to retain their power and wealth. Again neo con bullshit is just self serving for the rich, you NEED to reward your loyal supporters every dictatorship knows this.

North Korea is not a good example to follow, yet it checks all those boxes.
Strong central states tend to suck economically, and in long term that gives you large but backwards army and a country mocked by the rest of the world for its poverty and lack of freedom.

Funny you know the Roman Empire was much more centralized than many of the tribes in Gaul, or Britannia, or Germania. Yet those barbarian tribes which were decentralized kept getting their ass kicked by the Romans. A strong centralized army with competent leadership will defeat divided squabbling groups. Divide and conquer exists for a reason. The west is not strong because "muh freedom" it's strong for other reasons, technology and luck of geography. An America that was a fascist dictatorship would also be a strong world power.

 

[Marduk]

I support Ukraine, but even I remember when the name 'Ukraine' was only slightly less synonymous with corruption than 'Russia'.

So yes, I think Sen. Paul's desire to have oversight on US aid going to Ukraine was a reasonable request, and the only reason to oppose it is if people do not want anyone looking to closely at where that aid actually ends up.
You act like it's an option of having oversight on US aid, or letting Russia win.

"oversight" is not a magic word spell, and you are ignoring the counterpoint i've made that this is a time sensitive matter. Secondly, oversight is:
a) Supervisors, considering the nature of the matter, politically impossible.
b) Bureaucracy - less effective, efficiency degrading.
It is the wish of those mean Ukrainian nationalists like Azov and Right Sector, the more militant, Russia hating ones the more they care about it, to make sure the aid gets used to fight Russia. If they are even half as common and nasty as certain parties claim, that should be considered better supervision that most government spending in USA.

Which shows precisely why the oversight should be there; so people cannot use 'war-time hysteria' to paper over problems that should be addressed.

This line of thinking is how US military ended up with battlefield lawyers.

And if nothing else, don't you think it'd be good to make sure high end US/NATO tech isn't getting sold to the Russians, and have oversight mechanisms to ensure our tech meant to help Ukraine isn't instead lining the pockets of a corrupt supply clerk?

Great if you can do it without meaningful delays or other efficiency losses. Can you?

This kind of calculus requires a healthy leadership that can see a good future for themselves. Not ones who feel their days are numbered.

There is a difference between their days in power being numbered, and ensuring that their days in this world are numbered and suddenly getting shorter.

Also, if the leadership is decapitated it will be up to individual military commanders.

There is also precedence for it. When the USSR fell a bunch of suitcase nukes disappeared to unknown buyers

If it's going to be as much rumor mongering based as your chosen example, that's perfectly fine. Where did these rumored suitcase nukes shore up in use? It would be hard to miss a nuclear explosion... And if they don't get used, or better yet, can't be used, who cares?

What free people want to have a supreme court that tells them what is and is not the law? If they chose the court, what if they change their minds? The same argument many use against religious authorities also applies to secular authorities, the differance is that at least in theory if the religious government is doing the right thing, their laws are divinely inspiried so there is an extra reason to obey them. After all why should I give a damn what the majority, or what the strongest government says if I can get away with it? At least if it's a religious justification I can believe that God knows what is just and he can know and punish everything.

Well if their laws are divinely explained by what you consider a heretic/infidel god then they have to be bad by that logic.

There might be some that are indoctrinated like that. But what about the others who are simply young, in debt and bitches on the democrat plantation? Seriously there might be some there who owe money and think that the democrats are better for them financially, but not care for all that other crap? In that case a bribe would be the smart thing to do.

The problem with one-off bribes like that is that once they are delivered, then the bribe recipient is even less pressured to favor the giver than before. Which might be a reason for the lackluster bribe delivery on part of the DNC. Pay off 1/15 of their debt, they might feel a need to keep voting for them to get more 1/15's, pay off everything for them, they might show you the middle finger for they no longer need your favor.

Also the problem with colleges could be solved if we had free state run colleges, that could fire any teacher that went against the government. That way those that are anti conservative could be purged.

But that is not required to have political purges in colleges. The leftists did that just fine as things are, somehow

It may be expensive but education is becoming more needed in the past it was ok if the majority of the working population could not read, then an 8th grade education was needed, now we need 12. you don't think it's likely with advancing society and technology mandatory colleges won't be needed for many jobs?

College self-interest driven degree inflation is a thing.

'Degree inflation': How the four-year degree became required

How did a four-year degree become compulsory for nearly every job – and could the need to reboot the economy help tackle this problem?

www.bbc.com

Lawyers and leftist NGOs help and benefit on the sidelines, according to perfectly mainstream US center-right source.

Degree Inflation and Discrimination

The pernicious effects of degree inflation are obvious, as tuition and student debt rise and qualified workers arbitrarily lose employment opportunities. But the practice also flouts federal law.

www.aei.org

Naturally it's a bad thing, and it's a similarly mainstream point.

How Degree Inflation Weakens The Economy

More employers are demanding college degrees for jobs that don't require college-level skills. That's bad news for the economy.

www.forbes.com

Meanwhile for similar and related reasons other parts of education are also getting inflated away, so what formally is 12th grade, now in practice cannot be assured to be worth anything once other factors create a rift between the bureaucratic reality of formal schooling and the practical results of it.

Many of America’s Black youths cannot read or do math — and that imperils us all

The largest, richest and most powerful country in the world is failing miserably at educating its youths.

thehill.com

What good is paper saying that student X had a whole lot of formal schooling and there is paperwork proving it, while in reality he can't do basic reading or math, which back some decades ago could at least be counted on regarding students with half as much time spent in the school system?

No, modern western property rights, would allow the family of traitors to retain their power and wealth.

What would happen if they turned out to be white nationalists instead?
See, the social and legal tools exist and are even being used to prove it, the problem is who and what for are they being wielded for.

Funny you know the Roman Empire was much more centralized than many of the tribes in Gaul, or Britannia, or Germania. Yet those barbarian tribes which were decentralized kept getting their ass kicked by the Romans. A strong centralized army with competent leadership will defeat divided squabbling groups. Divide and conquer exists for a reason. The west is not strong because "muh freedom" it's strong for other reasons, technology and luck of geography. An America that was a fascist dictatorship would also be a strong world power.

Of course the standards for social organization and needs put before it were different thousands of years ago.
Now "muh freedom", as was established, has quite a lot to do with the technology and "other reasons" for western world's successes. After all, China, with its STEM focused education, and massive, highly centralized country, and high IQ population, somehow still isn't the technological capital of the world (unless being the capital of stealing tech mostly from silly "muh freedom" countries counts).

 

[Bacle]

"oversight" is not a magic word spell, and you are ignoring the counterpoint i've made that this is a time sensitive matter. Secondly, oversight is:
a) Supervisors, considering the nature of the matter, politically impossible.
b) Bureaucracy - less effective, efficiency degrading.
It is the wish of those mean Ukrainian nationalists like Azov and Right Sector, the more militant, Russia hating ones the more they care about it, to make sure the aid gets used to fight Russia. If they are even half as common and nasty as certain parties claim, that should be considered better supervision that most government spending in USA.

This line of thinking is how US military ended up with battlefield lawyers.

Great if you can do it without meaningful delays or other efficiency losses. Can you?

You are the one claiming oversight would lead to delays big enough to be the deciding/a deciding factor in the war, so the onus is on you to prove that.

 

[Marduk]

You are the one claiming oversight would lead to delays big enough to be the deciding/a deciding factor in the war, so the onus is on you to prove that.

Rand Paul stalls Senate passage of $40 billion in Ukraine aid

His objection to immediate passage of the bill will delay it until next week.

www.cbsnews.com

Paul, a libertarian who often opposes U.S. intervention abroad, said he wanted language inserted into the bill, without a vote, that would have an inspector general scrutinize the new spending.

So a delay of unknown scale (pretty sure the inspector general is pretty busy these days) for mostly symbolic, high level bureaucratic kind of supervision that would hardly assure any of the things you expect said supervision to achieve.
Of course it is utterly impossible to prove anything that would happen in a hypothetical alternate future course of a war, so consider that a preemptive dismissal of your counterpoint that it's not actual proof, and also mockery of your implication that such a thing is even possible by asking for it.

 

[Bacle]

Rand Paul stalls Senate passage of $40 billion in Ukraine aid

His objection to immediate passage of the bill will delay it until next week.

www.cbsnews.com

So a delay of unknown scale (pretty sure the inspector general is pretty busy these days) for mostly symbolic, high level bureaucratic kind of supervision that would hardly assure any of the things you expect said supervision to achieve.
Of course it is utterly impossible to prove anything that would happen in a hypothetical alternate future course of a war, so consider that a preemptive dismissal of your counterpoint that it's not actual proof, and also mockery of your implication that such a thing is even possible by asking for it.

Let's see what you got wrong here.

1) 'An inspector general', not 'the inspector general'; not sure if this is an English as second language issue, but there is a difference between the two. Sen. Paul was talking about appointing an inspector general just to oversee the Ukraine aid, not making the head of the OIG do it himself.

2) 'Mostly symbolic, high level bureaucratic kind of supervision ' is an assumption you made, not anything in Sen. Paul said, so that's again on you to prove that it would be such.

3) You are the one who started demanding proof oversight would cause significant delays, so it's on you to show that, even in this hypothetical, the delays would have been as bad as you claim. If you were so sure the delays would be significant enough to justify labeling Sen. Paul a 'Russia simp' for suggesting oversight, you should be able to provide something to back it up besides your own assumptions.

Or you could just back off with throwing the 'Russia simp' label around as much, and as broadly, as you seem to like to do.

 

[History Learner]

its sometimes hard for people not to be self rightous assholes.

I'm guilty of that too at times, so no comment on my end. I'm an asshole, but I try not to be a hypocrite.

What were doing in Ukraine isn't nice, but way I see it there will be a great power who will dominate the west, its going to be either us or russia, and since I live in america I want it to be us.

I think about this tweet often lately:

 

[Cherico]

I'm guilty of that too at times, so no comment on my end. I'm an asshole, but I try not to be a hypocrite.



I think about this tweet often lately:

And Rome and Carthrage could have created a beautiful era of peace.

Fact is only one power was going to dominate the western world it was either going to be america or russia. And Russia came very fucking close to winning.

 

[History Learner]

And Rome and Carthrage could have created a beautiful era of peace.

Fact is only one power was going to dominate the western world it was either going to be america or russia. And Russia came very fucking close to winning.

What exactly is the Western World, where does it limits lay and what exactly is the compelling American interest in that? Honest questions, and it's something I've been discussing off site with others for a few weeks now.

 

[Cherico]

What exactly is the Western World, where does it limits lay and what exactly is the compelling American interest in that? Honest questions, and it's something I've been discussing off site with others for a few weeks now.

That is complicated some people say its this

But I think that's classicism where the west doesn't want to aknowledge that the orthadox and latin parts of western civilization are a part of us because they have less money I think the map looks like this.

 

[History Learner]

That is complicated some people say its this

But I think that's classicism where the west doesn't want to aknowledge that the orthadox and latin parts of western civilization are a part of us because they have less money I think the map looks like this.

With a general idea of the Western World defined, the question moves to what is the compelling American interest in that and how does it fit into the various definitions of the West?