Thanks for the Ukraine update. One aspect of being my age is that the ironies and convenient inconsistencies just keep piling up.
The GOP - or GQP as I call it (I do like the "FRP" as well :) was historically the war hawk in the room - opposing Russian aggression after WWII. We called it "communism" but Marx might have disagreed. It was really just another form of totalitarianism and Russian expansionism. The guys who killed the Romanoffs were not really much different from their victims. But I digress.
Now we have an FRP that cozies up to Russians that want to rebuild their empire. The GOP has really transformed itself. Where are those "defenders of democracy and freedom" now? The ironies are stunning. Where are the war mongering weapons manufacturers who gave us a couple of obscenely ineffective Trillion Dollar wars? Don't they see the next opportunity to transfer tax payer money to their coffers?
Is opposition to Ukrainian support just based on the fact that Democrats support Ukraine, therefore it must be opposed? Because everything Democrats do is wrong? Help me untwist my irony mangled brain.
To carry your logic a bit further, I suspect that all those calculations about previous FRP positions don't matter. What does matter more is increasing the chance that Democrats will lose in 2024, so that imposition of a Christian Nationalist agenda could be implemented. Once that occurs, you'll see the war mongering come back, because it will be god's will.
I am still searching for a god that will agree with my opinions all the time and provide me with cover for my costly mistakes and misadventures. No luck yet.
For a small fee, I could declare thr existence of the MA/ME/MA god that forgives all transgressions and mistakes by all Bills. You'd still have to cover any financial losses on your own, though.
Of course, he Republicans don't want to help Ukraine; trump hates Zelensky because he wouldn't help trump illegally by saying he, Zelensky, was investigating Biden. And Putin is trump's hero, a strongman, dictator. The Independents are opposed because our entertainment media (formerly known as the news media) isn't reporting accurately the events leading up to and continuing anti-Geneva Convention rules of war, Putin's direct attack on the civilian population of Ukraine, since they (Russia) are losing the military war.
Paying for Ukraine aid by seizing and selling off frozen Russian assets. Questionably legal and feasible. Sounds like having Mexico pay for the wall. That went well.
FASCINATING; I like the direction but there I see two problems. One is that Putin could be triggered to take it as the reason to launch a nuclear attack. The other is that we should not fund this war, just as we should not have funded the War in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan The plan for this war is a plan that won’t bring peace, won’t bring a lasting neutrality. I think funding this war is like going to the board ready to play checkers when actually it’s not even a chess game, it’s a Glass Bead Game (Herman Hesse’s construct - whose rules are only alluded to—they are so sophisticated that they are not easy to imagine).
I think the only appropriate response is for our president to address NATO asking what will end this tyrant’s threat to world peace? A full challenge, only a full challenge to Putin would work. (he first had talked to our allies confidentially). When we have NATO, add ANZUS, SEATO, the Pacific Alliance. Then invite Putin to a summit meeting. You can quit now or the world will stop all trade with you, all communication, all digital connection, and block all flights and all visas for all your people.
Where was the outrage from the CINOs for the wasted American lives in Afghanistan? And the money wasted on a 3rd world country whose GDP when we first attacked the country was so low it wasn't even measurable.
With the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan and the takeover by the Taliban, we've looked at how much the US and its Nato allies have spent in the country in 20 years of military operations.
What forces were sent in?
The US invaded in October 2001 to oust the Taliban, whom they said were harbouring Osama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda figures linked to the 9/11 attacks.
US troop numbers grew as Washington poured in billions of dollars to fight a Taliban insurgency and fund reconstruction, peaking at about 110,000 in 2011.
How much money has been spent?
The vast majority of spending in Afghanistan has come from the US.
Following the final withdrawal of US troops, President Joe Biden quoted two figures for the total cost of the war.
He said: "After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan... [or] you could take the number of $1tn, as many say."
Cost of war in Afghanistan for US
Between 2010 to 2012, when the US for a time had more than 100,000 soldiers in the country, the cost of the war grew to more than $100bn a year, according to US government figures.
As the US military shifted its focus away from offensive operations and concentrated more on training up Afghan forces, costs fell sharply to about $45bn in recent years.
According to the US Department of Defense, the total military expenditure in Afghanistan (from October 2001 until December 2020) was $825bn, with about another $130bn spent on reconstruction projects.
That brings the total cost, based on official data, to about $955bn between 2001 and 2020 - close to the lower $1tn estimate given by Mr Biden.
Georgia,
Thanks for the Ukraine update. One aspect of being my age is that the ironies and convenient inconsistencies just keep piling up.
The GOP - or GQP as I call it (I do like the "FRP" as well :) was historically the war hawk in the room - opposing Russian aggression after WWII. We called it "communism" but Marx might have disagreed. It was really just another form of totalitarianism and Russian expansionism. The guys who killed the Romanoffs were not really much different from their victims. But I digress.
Now we have an FRP that cozies up to Russians that want to rebuild their empire. The GOP has really transformed itself. Where are those "defenders of democracy and freedom" now? The ironies are stunning. Where are the war mongering weapons manufacturers who gave us a couple of obscenely ineffective Trillion Dollar wars? Don't they see the next opportunity to transfer tax payer money to their coffers?
Is opposition to Ukrainian support just based on the fact that Democrats support Ukraine, therefore it must be opposed? Because everything Democrats do is wrong? Help me untwist my irony mangled brain.
To carry your logic a bit further, I suspect that all those calculations about previous FRP positions don't matter. What does matter more is increasing the chance that Democrats will lose in 2024, so that imposition of a Christian Nationalist agenda could be implemented. Once that occurs, you'll see the war mongering come back, because it will be god's will.
Yup.
I am still searching for a god that will agree with my opinions all the time and provide me with cover for my costly mistakes and misadventures. No luck yet.
For a small fee, I could declare thr existence of the MA/ME/MA god that forgives all transgressions and mistakes by all Bills. You'd still have to cover any financial losses on your own, though.
Sounds good. Message me your checking account number and I will Venmo you. This is exciting!
Of course, he Republicans don't want to help Ukraine; trump hates Zelensky because he wouldn't help trump illegally by saying he, Zelensky, was investigating Biden. And Putin is trump's hero, a strongman, dictator. The Independents are opposed because our entertainment media (formerly known as the news media) isn't reporting accurately the events leading up to and continuing anti-Geneva Convention rules of war, Putin's direct attack on the civilian population of Ukraine, since they (Russia) are losing the military war.
Paying for Ukraine aid by seizing and selling off frozen Russian assets. Questionably legal and feasible. Sounds like having Mexico pay for the wall. That went well.
FASCINATING; I like the direction but there I see two problems. One is that Putin could be triggered to take it as the reason to launch a nuclear attack. The other is that we should not fund this war, just as we should not have funded the War in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan The plan for this war is a plan that won’t bring peace, won’t bring a lasting neutrality. I think funding this war is like going to the board ready to play checkers when actually it’s not even a chess game, it’s a Glass Bead Game (Herman Hesse’s construct - whose rules are only alluded to—they are so sophisticated that they are not easy to imagine).
I think the only appropriate response is for our president to address NATO asking what will end this tyrant’s threat to world peace? A full challenge, only a full challenge to Putin would work. (he first had talked to our allies confidentially). When we have NATO, add ANZUS, SEATO, the Pacific Alliance. Then invite Putin to a summit meeting. You can quit now or the world will stop all trade with you, all communication, all digital connection, and block all flights and all visas for all your people.
Where was the outrage from the CINOs for the wasted American lives in Afghanistan? And the money wasted on a 3rd world country whose GDP when we first attacked the country was so low it wasn't even measurable.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47391821
By Reality Check team
BBC News
With the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan and the takeover by the Taliban, we've looked at how much the US and its Nato allies have spent in the country in 20 years of military operations.
What forces were sent in?
The US invaded in October 2001 to oust the Taliban, whom they said were harbouring Osama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda figures linked to the 9/11 attacks.
US troop numbers grew as Washington poured in billions of dollars to fight a Taliban insurgency and fund reconstruction, peaking at about 110,000 in 2011.
How much money has been spent?
The vast majority of spending in Afghanistan has come from the US.
Following the final withdrawal of US troops, President Joe Biden quoted two figures for the total cost of the war.
He said: "After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan... [or] you could take the number of $1tn, as many say."
Cost of war in Afghanistan for US
Between 2010 to 2012, when the US for a time had more than 100,000 soldiers in the country, the cost of the war grew to more than $100bn a year, according to US government figures.
As the US military shifted its focus away from offensive operations and concentrated more on training up Afghan forces, costs fell sharply to about $45bn in recent years.
According to the US Department of Defense, the total military expenditure in Afghanistan (from October 2001 until December 2020) was $825bn, with about another $130bn spent on reconstruction projects.
That brings the total cost, based on official data, to about $955bn between 2001 and 2020 - close to the lower $1tn estimate given by Mr Biden.