Just a reminder...

I have seen nothing on PF that credibly says the right supports Russia, though there are some wild-eyed flaming lefties that will shout the right supports ____________ ..... fill in the blank with anything bad whatsoever.

 

~ Sometimes Trump thinks he is AOC ...

 

I haven't noticed their pro- Russia arguments being "dropped," but only not being made, quite as loudly. Some, like the 1st two posters I'd quoted-- Jeannette & Bill Carson-- are unrepentant defenders of the Kremlin, and cheerleaders for Putin; all the remarks I took, I believe, were very recent. There are others here who are admittedly Russian, like ManYack, who so I did not include, under the banner of, "Conservative."

But what many have been doing also-- and I don't know if any had switched to this track, or if all had always followed it-- is to make arguments that might come across as more reasonable, as "impartial" analyses of facts, but will use as their bases, certain ideas, like that Putin's word could be trusted, and that his only concern is his own, or Russia's security (unacceptably threatened, should Ukraine ever become part of NATO) which one could not say that they might not actually believe, but which I feel, still shows their bias. The third poster I'd quoted, Robert, had quotes of this nature, as did Tough Talk, and, I justsayin. There are also those who try to turn the matter into some philosophical argument, so as to not need pay much attention to the profane details.*

@Big Richard

Just some more examples for you.

The reason for the various posters' biases, is as much a mystery as Putin's own rationales. For some it may merely a wish to blame everything on Biden & Democrats.

For others, it's anyone's guess.




* Among those who expand the argument, with their theories, into some grander, philosophical conflict, thereby focusing on conceptual aspects, instead of the temporal struggle-- being waged against, and with, the lives of Ukranian citizens-- I had quoted Destroyer of Illusions' post. This treatment is his norm, though, on all topics. Thinking about it now, I'm not sure if he really should have been classed with Conservatives-- my bad. He has some ideas that are beyond liberal. I don't read him much, because it always feels as if he is pushing some unstated agenda. I would call his political posture, to be: Iconoclast.

 

"The Right" does not have a uniform posture, on this. Some are, still, staunchly anti- Russian, in keeping with their Communist antipathies. But there is, certainly, a pro- Russian contingent of "the Right," which associates Putin with being for fundamentalist Christianity (Eastern Orthodox), and "traditional" values, against homosexuality, sexual deviancy, and "multiculturalist" ideas, generally. He also projects an authoritarian image, which appeals to many, on the Right, including Trump, who is beloved by many, on the Right. Whether Trump is a "Conservative," would depend on one's definition. His brand of Conservativism, however, is being called that, and being treated as such; so, for practical purposes, it qualifies as Conservativism, in our present, political milieu, regardless of its non-traditional, fiscal apperception.

There is also a very large, third, category, on the Right, who are suspended between the other two, seemingly a bit uncertain as to the best place to sit, for this part of the Conservative show. A propensity for waffling, has been noticable, among at least some of the higher- profile members, of this group.

In these posts, I give some examples:


http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/just-a-reminder.597492/#post-1073292872


http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/just-a-reminder.597492/page-3#post-1073294194

 

Much truth in what you say.

 

But I thought we were all supposedly Hive mind, marching in lockstep unable to disagree....?

That's another broad brush I often hear here at the forum.

 

Just a reminder .... Trump is not president.

 

I don't know, MJ. A lot of people here disagree with me, but I think the goal in negotiations would be a free and independent Ukraine. I don't believe that necessarily requires that they be a part of NATO. If we could have brokered a permanent agreement between NATO, Ukraine, and Russia that guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty and independence, but excluded it from NATO, my gut is that Trump would have seen that as a fair compromise. Now would Putin agree to that? I don't know. But I do know this: Our present administration has absolutely refused to budge from NATO membership for Ukraine. And now we have war. So let me put it this way .... If we could have our universe where Biden is president and an alternative universe where Trump was president, and we had to lay our bets on which president would negotiate a win-win-win agreement and which one wouldn't, I would place my bets on Trump to negotiate the win.

He also made unprecedented overtures to the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un. He was unable to win the top prize, a permanent peace between North and South Korea and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but what he did win was a huge reduction of tension between North Korea and the U.S. That was something. It was a notable accomplishment. I suspect that Kim Jong Un respected Trump for his courage to make the overture and to meet with him. He also brokered a number of peace agreements between Israel and multiple muslim countries. In retrospect, I see a former president who would engage, negotiate, and try to find a deal that would work for both sides, and so again, by bets would be on Trump to have been able to avoid the war we are seeing now.

I have thought the same thing as @AARguy . I'm wondering if he's got terminal cancer or something, and he's "going for it" with nothing to lose.

Wow! Amen to that!!!

I am the parent of a Purple Heart veteran who almost lost his life in battle. It totally changes your perspective ... forever.

"Casualties" are not statistics to me. They break my heart. The 13 killed in Afghanistan last August break my heart.

I think your suggestions about presidential qualifications are good ones, and I'll take it a step further. What I would like to see is that if our President deploys our troops to war, the President has to go too. I'm not saying he has to be on the front lines with a rifle, but he has to at least be present in the country where we are conducting the war. And he has to stay there until the war is over (with visits home for R&R no better than what our soldiers get).

"Yeah, but what if he gets killed?" That's what we have a Vice President for.

"Who would make all the other presidential decisions?" That's what a phone is for, and again, that's what a Vice President is for.

MJ, when I hear the warhawks saying, "We should go into XYZ country and kick their asses", I ask them if they would give up their son or daughter for this cause. I mean, would it be OK if their child died for this. Because I almost gave up mine, and I know what that's like. Do you know what answer I usually get? Nothing. No answer.

Sgt Nicole Gee, age 23, USMC, one of the 13 killed in Afghanistan by a suicide bomber, August, 2021.

 

For some, but the fact is that the US's position towards Russia has been consistent and aggressive over multiple presidencies, of both parties. You can't waive this issue away by trying to make it partisan. The fact remains that the US has bases and military hardware and missiles closer and closer to Russia over the years. It is a movement that must worry Russia, especially when coupled with such aggressive talk from US politicians towards Russia. That can be true at the same time as Putin being a corrupt despot.

 

That's a very good point. We would certainly not tolerate foreign Nations having bases and armaments near our borders.

Look at how the world freaked out during the Cuban missile crisis.

Disclaimer..

My post should in no way be construed to display support for Russia.

 

I am an old guy. I grew up in an era where we practiced hiding under our desks from a Russian nuclear attack (talk about a waste of time!). I grew up in a world filled with Communist intrigue, conflict with Russia from Vietnam to Grenada, Russian missiles in Cuba aimed at us, and Russian atrocities from Hungary to Cambodia. Russians were bad guys. Period.
I was a Field Artillery Officer in the Army and we joked, only half kidding, that our mission was to "kill the godless commie btards by the thousands, rearrange terrain, and "make cave dwelling a acceptable standard of living in the homelands of our enemies".
When the people of many communist countries got tired of standing in bread lines and overthrew their communist masters, I was happy. I was very happy for America, and I guess, to a lesser extent, for the former communist serfs.
I am glad we maintain the ability to guarantee our national security on a global basis. And I couldn't care less if that keeps the Russians up at night. I will sleep like a baby knowing that we have the ability to defeat our enemies and stay safe.

 

Russia is in a tight spot with a politically aggressive and rhetorically threatenning NATO breathing down its back and trying to use Ukraine as a patsy to foment conflict.

But invading Ukraine is def not the solution! Not only is it universally obligatory for civilized peoples to abhore such offensive violence (and yes, I believe its just as bad when we do it), its also just doing what NATO wants. Russia had a good point regarding its worries about what was going on in Ukraine, and certainly NATO was instigating conflict, but Putin actually started the fighting just like he knew NATO wanted him to, and now Ukraine has a legit reason to violate the 'no NATO' treaty it had with Russia.

I hope Ukraine accepts a neutrality deal or the Russian people manage to stop their military from attacking. But if neither of those happen (and they're unlikely) then Im with the Ukrainian citizens defending their homes.

 

I think 'I don't hate Russia' is commonly being conflated with 'Putin supporter!' by some of the usual and known 'black or white only' folks.

 

WE do it???? huh???

 

Iraq

 

UN approved our invasion of Iraq. The Coalition that waged war had most European nations contributing. Very different situation.The world was with us... the world is condemning Russia.

 

The governments of the world were with us. Which is basically just saying the corrupt elites of the world were with us.

Doesnt make it right.

 

"corrupt elites of the world"??? Wow, your whole world seems to suck. It must be awful to live in a world where no one can be trusted. What a horrible way to live. You have my sympathy.

 

Most people can be trusted. Just not those who seek power over others. Normal people rarely end up ruling others.

 

So what?

How does that make it ok? Some other people cheer the Bush regime on, so its ok to attack and murder people who were not responsible for the wrong they claimed motivated them (9/11)? May as well make up some fake intel about nuclear weapons while at it eh? The smoking gun could be in the form of a mushroom cloud, and these things are evidence of nuclear weapons (even though we made that up).

 

I disagree. Lincoln was President and freed the slaves. Winston Churchill just about saved the world. I have known some wonderful people that became powerful and successful myself. My first Battalion Commander became a life long friend. He made three stars and was Schwartzkopf's XO in Desert Storm. Wonderful guy. There are good folks and bad folks at all levels of society.

 

What people were attacked and murdered? "Smoking nuke guns?... hmmmm... step away from that pipe... relax... take a deep breath..

 

Then why is @Jolly Penguin 's, a good point? If you both are trying to appreciate Russia's complaint, certainly no one should fault you, in that. But why does your comparison end there, and not carry through to how the U.S. might respond, in such a circumstance, versus what we are seeing from Russia, in Ukraine? Ukraine, I must remind all, a country which, before this unprovoked attack, from Russia, was by all estimates, a COUPLE OF DECADES AWAY, from being admitted to NATO.:

It had not applied to NATO.

No NATO nation had been publicly advocating for Ukraine's inclusion.

There are REQUIREMENTS, for NATO membership-- which could potentially, now, be waived, for the first time, ever, for Ukraine, specifically because of Russia's actions-- of the strength of the country's democracy, freedom from corruption, and the like, which Ukraine was far from satisfying.

AND, to be admitted, a new country must receive UNANIMOUS approval, from all 30 existing members.

So, given a reversal of circumstances, the basis of Jolly Penguin's argument, we are worried that Mexico will join a military alliance with China, sometime around 2040, and we fear that when that occurs, China will put missiles on our border. So, we accuse the Mexican government of being genocidal Nazis (redundant, I guess), and launch an invasion, in which we are attacking the citizenry? Not that I'm contending, that the U.S. military hasn't killed civilians, but I still don't think it would be reasonable to believe that we would do this in a way comparable to the manner we are seeing from Russia.

What looks, to my mind, like the reasonable compromise, is NOT that Mexico should never be allowed to join China's alliance, but that China & Mexico should sign a treaty with us, to never put nuclear missiles in Mexico.

NATO's not putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine, IF it were ever to become a member, there's no reason to believe would be off the table, or to assume could not have been negotiated, far in advance of the need for this agreement. So, once more, what is the value of a partial analogy, to something that the U.S. would not tolerate, if that is used to, in the slightest, excuse Putin's actions?
Our "solution," would not be comparable to Putin's.

 

The news is out! Mexico will join with the Martians in an alliance in 2050! We must start to developphoton torpedoes NOW!!
Or we can just wait and see if anything like that ever happens... LOL.

 

Lincoln killed a lot of people to avoid the US Government losing power. And he only freed the slaves of his enemies. He himself said on multiple occasions that he had neither the power nor the desire to abolish slavery. He believed black people were inferior, opposed race mixing, and at one point had a plan drawn up to deport all blacks from US soil because he believed the 'races' were not compatible together in a society.

I dont actually know anything bad about Churchill. I consider him a very rare exception to the rule.

I don't consider officers in our military to be exerting any power over others. Everyone there volunteered to exist in that structure, and has the option to leave. Thats quite a bit different than govt having authority over its citizens. There is always a minority group that did not consent to be ruled.