heybruce

There are limits to free speech. Witness intimidation is illegal, as it should be.

Most of them are contributing much more as a percent of their GDP: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/

The hypocrisy is incredible. The employers vote for anti-immigrant candidates then acted shocked when one of the candidates actually implements anti-immigrant measures. "And he’s not alone bad-mouthing the governor — and still singing the praises of Trump, who he feels understands him better because he, too, hires foreign workers to operate his resorts, condo towers and golf courses." Apparently they think every anti-immigrant candidate should talk big but continue to allow the employment of illegals. For the most part, the assumption has been correct. Clearly they hate it when they get what they voted for.

"And still others worry that every dime spent on Ukraine is one that is not spent on defending Taiwan — and the broader Indo-Pacific region — from Chinese neoimperial expansion" Russia is significantly less powerful than China, and Ukraine is significantly larger than Taiwan. Demonstrating a lack of resolve in helping Ukraine would encourage China to invade Taiwan.

I think everybody outside of Moscow wants peace.

troll 2 of 3 troll 3 of 3 noun (2) 1 : a lure or a line with its lure and hook used in trolling 2 : a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content Internet trolls In the late 1980s, Internet users adopted the word "troll" to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll Regarding news organizations, I trust them, especially those that have been around a while and earned a reputaion for being mostly correct and admitting when they are wrong, over anonymous postings on the internet.

I propose a new rule: You can't use "woke" unless you can provide a generally accepted definition of the word. The only generally accepted definition I know of is as the past tense of "wake". Using that definition, and sense I prefer important decisions be made by people who are awake, I want the woke people to win.

Yes, the world one hundred years ago, then still in the age of empires, was very different from the world today. No doubt the world in one hundred years will also be very different. I want it to be better. Moving away from might makes right is movement in a better direction. A lot of these countries are understandably cynical about the games the great powers play and apathetic about the war and its outcome. They are pragmatically willing to play both sides for maximum advantage. I can't fault them for that, but we shouldn't let there opportunistic policies change our support for Ukraine.

The majority of Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate support funding Ukraine. McCarthy is letting a few right-wingnuts dictate policy to him. Funding will continue after the nutjobs are ignored or distracted.

I'm willing to have more of my taxes going to arm Ukraine/disarm Russia.

We're giving Ukraine what we no longer need: "But the cluster-armed version of ATACMS are more plentiful than those topped with a single — or “unitary” — warhead and are no longer considered a front-line U.S. weapon." https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/09/22/atacms-ukraine-cluster-munitions/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert

Yes, it's a conflict between a rules based world order and a "might makes right" world order in which powerful nations feel free to go on wars of conquest. There are many problems with the latter option, the biggest one being that the surest defense against attack is possession of nuclear weapons. A world in which many small, poorly governed countries with paranoid leaders possess nuclear weapons (think North Korea a hundred times over) is not a pleasant idea.

These supporters must not be very supportive if Putin must spend 40% of the Russian government's budget to fund his war.

"Don't looked photo-shopped to me" is not a credible source. Certainly not as credible as the one given by Bkk Brian above. You don't know who is responsible for the picture in the OP yet you believe it. You don't believe long established news organizations because you don't like what they tell you. You seem like a troll's target audience.

Right, and there's absolutely no way some troll couldn't photoshop that and put it on the internet for consumption by the gullible. (That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't figure it out.) Credible posts have links to credible sources.

"The US military and the military industrial complex have done very nicely out of portraying the Russians as the boogyman..." More of the same blah, blah, blah; unsupported by any evidence. If it makes you feel better, the defense industry has well below average profit margins compared to other US industries. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html

The longer Russia holds their line, the weaker the country gets. "The combined GDP of nato’s members is 12 times that of Russia, even after accounting for Russia’s lower prices. The difference is that Russia is willing to spend much more heavily on the war: military spending now takes up almost 40% of the national budget, far in excess of Western levels." https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/09/21/western-help-for-ukraine-is-likely-to-diminish-next-year How long can Putin allow Russia to go to hell in order to support his unnecessary war of empire?

Making it up as you go along, aren't you? Why not provide some credible sources for you claims? While your at it, explain how these labs qualify as WMD's.

Do you mean medical research centers? The places that did not have the capability or interest in weaponizing anything?

Yeah, but people who want to believe a fake story will do so regardless of evidence.

Negotiate with Putin? You conveniently ignore that fact that Putin can not be trusted. He breaks international law and any agreements made, and is determined to destabilize any country bordering Russia that he can not dominate. You can't negotiate with someone like that. Since you seem China obsessed, consider this: Allowing Russia to salvage any kind of victory would be a gift to China. It would announce to the world that wars of conquest are allowed and beneficial. All the countries in Asia that don't want to be dominated by Russia or China will rush to acquire nuclear weapons. Do you think this will be a better world?

It's also possible to believe in the Easter Bunny, but it's not realistic.

Right. Tell us about the WMD's that were found.

So Putin is calling this a special military operation so he doesn't have to abide by international law. Got it. BTW: NATO bombed Serbia to end a long running conflict and the genocides that had been committed. NATO bombed Libya to impose a ceasefire in a civil war. In both cases there were no NATO casualties and no NATO ground forces employed. It's somewhat different in Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine.

With over 100,000 Russian dead it certainly is special. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html