If the barrier against defending a democratic nation from takeover by an autocratic military power is that the invaded country has a corrupt leader and some of the citizens are white supremacists then the U.S. should rightfully be conquered.

This is to say, I don't understand some of the arguments for leaving the Ukrainians to the Russian dogs. I can understand a hardline isolationist or strict pacifist perspective (which may get close to some FM's POV) but the "Let the nation fall cause some of those people are dicks" angle doesn't resonate with me.

As for NATO, I respect a healthy skepticism for the military industrial complex. My nation squanders trillions on these war machines. Yet somehow saber rattling deterrence, mutually assured destruction etc seems to be the vehicle for peace amongst the global super powers. That's not an endorsement, just a thought that it would be a colossal shift for it to work another way.

Curry Pervert wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:59 pm

kokorodoko wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 2:52 pm Stop being an idiot.

Take your own advice.

NATO is the US expansionist war machine. The US has been fucking around in Ukraine for a long time. Many advisors and political scientists said that this would happen.

Stop drinking the foreign policy kool aid.

https://www.economist.com/by-invitation ... ian-crisis

Yup. The same swivel eyed lunatics that supported the invasion of Iraq are now mortally outraged by another foreign power exerting power within its sphere of influence.

It’s raw liberal stupidity that “something must be done”.

What seems to have been missed in my comment was referring to Putin’s illegal war. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a tragedy and the sooner ends the better for everyone. But it’s ludicrous to say you end wars by pouring arms into a region while at the same time offering the beligerante power no acceptable exit. This is a nuclear armed Russia, and despite what the US did to the country via Jeffery Sacks and friends, not some piss pot banana republic. Western powers should be deescalating while looking for rapid ways to get Europe off its addiction to Russian hydrocarbons. But you can’t do that if we’re all ash.

America, let alone the U.K. is not a superpower that can act unilaterally, so there is no “we should have been stronger”. Remember America and U.K. lost the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. All that happened in those two countries was millions of dead people, billions of wasted dollars all because, “we have to do something!”

Hands up who remembers duck and cover drills? Not wet millennials that read the Atlantic and didn’t grow up during the Cold War.

Gramsci wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:53 pm
But it’s ludicrous to say you end wars by pouring arms into a region while at the same time offering the beligerante power no acceptable exit. This is a nuclear armed Russia, and despite what the US did to the country via Jeffery Sacks and friends, not some piss pot banana republic. Western powers should be deescalating while looking for rapid ways to get Europe off its addiction to Russian hydrocarbons. But you can’t do that if we’re all ash.

What off ramp would Russia even take seriously? The only one I can think of is for Ukraine to break off a chunk of their country and give it to Putin.

Is it legitimate to question why the USA has given the Ukraine $6.92 billion? I would presume this money is earmarked for some type of bloodshed, but to a simple person such as myself $6.92 billion would do a lot of good at home. Am I missing something? Don't want to sound callous, but can someone succinctly explain how this is a good thing? I have to be missing something.

Gramsci wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:53 pm
Yup. The same swivel eyed lunatics that supported the invasion of Iraq are now mortally outraged by another foreign power exerting power within its sphere of influence.

The hypocrisy of foreign politicians and pundits doesn't change the fact that it is in fact outrageous.

Gramsci wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:53 pm looking for rapid ways to get Europe off its addiction to Russian hydrocarbons.

Very true.

rsmurphy wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:59 pm Is it legitimate to question why the USA has given the Ukraine $6.92 billion? I would presume this money is earmarked for some type of bloodshed, but to a simple person such as myself $6.92 billion would do a lot of good at home. Am I missing something? Don't want to sound callous, but can someone succinctly explain how this is a good thing? I have to be missing something.

I think most of the billions have been in equipment, not cash. It's a good thing if you like Ukrainians blowing up Russian tanks with rockets. It's a bad thing if you don't. I say in earnest that a reasonable mind could argue for either.

rsmurphy wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:59 pm Is it legitimate to question why the USA has given the Ukraine $6.92 billion? I would presume this money is earmarked for some type of bloodshed, but to a simple person such as myself $6.92 billion would do a lot of good at home. Am I missing something? Don't want to sound callous, but can someone succinctly explain how this is a good thing? I have to be missing something.

Well, the ever-compassionate citizens of Portland and Multnomah County have earmarked $3.5 Billion in bonds and property tax increases to help address the housing and houseless crisis here. So far, not much has come of it. There is a 70-bed group home sitting empty downtown. Another 60 room hotel conversion that was just completed at a cost of almost $1,500 per square foot and sits empty, and most proposals that currently look to run about $400k per unit or housed citizen.

Money does not equal will-to-power, and more money does not necessarily translate to effective problem solving.

Portland doesn't have a lack of financial commitment to its problems, it lacks a will to make things happen - out of an abundance of caution and fear that 'to make an omelette, you're going to have to break some eggs'. Those eggs happen to be the vested interests and ideologies of advocacy groups and civil libertarians whose notions of personal freedom aren't really much different than the crazier elements of the conservative right, as well as the 'freedoms' of the destitute to pretty much do whatever the fuck they want regardless of its impact on the surrounding community or taxpayers - yes the people footing the fucking bill for this exercise in milquetoast progressivism.

Geiginni wrote:Money does not equal will-to-power, and more money does not necessarily translate to effective problem solving.

I've considered this. So, basically the most vulnerable in our country are fucked. Nothing ever changes, or the changes are so incremental so as not to make headway in any one problem. It's shitty to sound so defeatist, but...

losthighway wrote:think most of the billions have been in equipment, not cash.

Makes sense, but the wrong people are profiting from it. I mean, nobody should be profiting from war, but...

rsmurphy wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:33 pm

Geiginni wrote:Money does not equal will-to-power, and more money does not necessarily translate to effective problem solving.

I've considered this. So, basically the most vulnerable in our country are fucked. Nothing ever changes, or the changes are so incremental so as not to make headway in any one problem. It's shitty to sound so defeatist, but...

I think part of the problem is the very notion of personal liberty. It's hard to help the most vulnerable when: A) You refuse to differentiate between those who are acting in good-faith and those who are acting in bad-faith, or simply bad-actors. You only hurt the most vulnerable when you allow criminals and victimizers to live in proximity to them. B) You give the most vulnerable choice in the matter. I feel that if you've landed in a place where you're living in desperation, you've run out of choices. You have become, or rather should become, under such circumstances, a ward of the state. As a ward of the state there must be certain rules and expectations set for being relieved of a life of desperation. Which leads to C) "Free stuff" alone won't solve the issues at the heart of this. Too much trauma and hopelessness leads to the inability to plan and assess risk and make good decisions for oneself. The "nanny state" as it were is a necessity for many people, and in the interest of those who foot the bill for the social safety net, some often very strong strings must be attached and are a necessary thing for the social contract to work for everyone.

It's not enough to just say "we need to provide more services, more outreach, more counseling, more options, more....", when there are those who will still elect to live in a tent fortress by the highway smoking meth and being the King Faizal of stolen bike parts and cat converters, while at the same time making life more difficult for those on the street who desperately want to get off the streets. At some point it's not about "more [blank]" being necessary, but simply not being given the choice. The state will dictate the terms of getting you off the streets, with the terms moving from more humanitarian and generous to more onerous and punitive if you refuse to comply.

Also, if we're not going to enforce the law equally, then the law should be repealed or rewritten. As much as we hate to see the wealthy treated as "above the law", I hate to see the desperate as somehow being "below the law" and therefore immune from its enforcement. The working and middle class just end up getting fucked from both ends.

Geiginni wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:09 pm I think part of the problem is the very notion of personal liberty. It's hard to help the most vulnerable when: A) You refuse to differentiate between those who are acting in good-faith and those who are acting in bad-faith, or simply bad-actors. You only hurt the most vulnerable when you allow criminals and victimizers to live in proximity to them.

The situation has become so dire that making such distinctions does more harm. Is the point you are trying to make is that we shouldn't be helping bad homeless people? I'd think that experiencing homelessness causes some people to do very bad things. Of course, there are also bad people who become homeless, but as a society shouldn't all of us - especially those who have the power - figure out a way to help everyone? If I have misconstrued anything you've posted let me know. Not my intent.

B) You give the most vulnerable choice in the matter. I feel that if you've landed in a place where you're living in desperation, you've run out of choices. You have become, or rather should become, under such circumstances, a ward of the state. As a ward of the state there must be certain rules and expectations set for being relieved of a life of desperation.

This already happens, n'est-ce pas?

C) "Free stuff" alone won't solve the issues at the heart of this. Too much trauma and hopelessness leads to the inability to plan and assess risk and make good decisions for oneself. The "nanny state" as it were is a necessity for many people, and in the interest of those who foot the bill for the social safety net, some often very strong strings must be attached and are a necessary thing for the social contract to work for everyone.

I'm not talking about free stuff. Bettered safety net programs, including rules and expectations, should be paramount. I just think that those in power don't care and/or don't wish to expend the energy and money to make it work for everybody.

It's not enough to just say "we need to provide more services, more outreach, more counseling, more options, more....", when there are those who will still elect to live in a tent fortress by the highway smoking meth and being the King Faizal of stolen bike parts and cat converters, while at the same time making life more difficult for those on the street who desperately want to get off the streets. At some point it's not about "more [blank]" being necessary, but simply not being given the choice. The state will dictate the terms of getting you off the streets, with the terms moving from more humanitarian and generous to more onerous and punitive if you refuse to comply.

As a *crosses fingers* former user I can honestly say that I know more addicts and those in recovery that live in high rises in wealthy neighborhoods than those that live in tent cities. One is privileged and is privy to a multitude of options, the other isn't. We need to destigmatize addiction, especially within the lower classes.

Also, if we're not going to enforce the law equally, then the law should be repealed or rewritten. As much as we hate to see the wealthy treated as "above the law", I hate to see the desperate as somehow being "below the law" and therefore immune from its enforcement. The working and middle class just end up getting fucked from both ends.

Is this really happening? I'd think that the desperate are rounded-up more than the wealthy. Being sympathetic to one's plight isn't the same as giving them immunity.

Homelessness is just one part of the problem. There is also hunger. Lots of hungry families with homes will be going to bed hungry tonight, not because of war or lack of agriculture, but because they just don't have enough money. Then there's our shit education system and lack of mental health services. It's all one big mess of a ball of yarn that I would think at least start to become untangled if as much care was spent on the less fortunate than the really fortunate. But I don't think this will happen, at least in our lifetime.

Again, if I misconstrued anything, my bad. I'm better at dissecting a record than politics.