galloog1 @ galloog1 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

474

Joined

2 yr. ago

The so what is that your perception of him being wronged specifically comes from Russian disinformation in an effort to suppress the vote in the general election. This was overall a successful campaign.

He simply lost. It was the most successful progressive campaign since John Edwards.

You skipped all the parts where I provided supporting evidence. You make yourself look ignorant. Sorry, I didn't read anything after the first sentence. (Actually I did read it but it doesn't actually expand on anything)

Yes, Ukraine is losing because they have not made it as far as they hoped is exactly the Russian narrative. It's not unwavering support but you completely ignore the rest of my comment so I don't know what to tell you. You look like an idiot because you are not addressing my points and just continuing the exact Russian narratives. I'm not entirely certain that you aren't a bugging bot that couldn't deal with an actual military political assessment.

700 Russian casualties yesterday and the kids in the Black Sea naval war says this situation is still significantly dynamic. Failure to advance does not mean Ukraine has lost the way anymore than it means Russia has lost the war in their failure to take Avdivka. People matter. Attrition matters.

War is politics by other means. Germany lost WWI due to a political failure, not anything on the frontlines. French Soldiers were mutinying up to the day of the armistice. There is a lot of political will in Ukraine and Russia didn't seem to get the memo that this has turned into an attritional fight. You interpret that as stalemate. They have interpreted it as needing to kill as many Russians as possible. With an average of 800 Russian casualties a day for the last two months, I'd say they are absolutely not losing this war but showing they can consistently be trusted to take the actions that are most sounds towards winning the war.

Don't think I don't understand propaganda and that both sides do it. You do match the Russian narratives perfectly though. Suspiciously so, actually.

But what waste do they have that they wouldn't want to eliminate for production reasons? They assemble cars from parts they buy. A lot of times these parts come from smaller machine shops. A pallet of parts comes in, it gets out on the car, pallet returns to the supplier for the next load. I'm not sure why people are confused here. It's not like they want the parts to be individually packaged.

Caveat: I'm not a manufacturing expert but I have met some of these machine shop people.

Trick question. Ukraine has already lost the second Russia invaded. They've lost an entire generation. They could still lose territory but I don't see them ever compromising at this point and Russia would have generations of insurgencies to deal with. Ukraine will eventually gain back their territory, if not within the current conflict.

That's not why the West is supporting them though. They are supporting them because Russia is fighting an aggressive land grab not seen since WWII (or arguably Kuwait but not by a nuclear power) and using the exact same tactics. Every major world institution set up since WWII was to prevent exactly this type of aggression.

So, to answer your leading question, yes Ukraine could still lose the current conflict. They already have and that's why they need the aid so that Russia can be as punished as possible to maintain the current deterrence for any other states that would seek to do the same thing.

The Democrats did not need superdelegates in the end to reject Bernie in 2016. There's also some significant evidence that Bernie was supported by Russian disinformation in an effort to get President Trump elected. That same disinformation effort that was seeking to discredit US elections in both parties and led to January 6th.

Israel is finishing a war they did not start. Violence progressed to the terrorist attack but it didn't start there. Do you really expect them to accept going back to the status quo that was progressively getting worse? That was the result of the last three conflicts.

All anyone who's been involved in an urban conflict. This is what it looks like. There is literally no way around it outside of blockading and starving the people for longer. If you know of a better way to take a defended city, you are literally lying.

I do not envy the Israeli position here. They have no good moves that would be acceptable for the people in this forum and actually protect their people. The terror attack was the proof that restraint didn't do anything and narratives concerning the prior conflicts simply showed that you don't actually care.

The place to do this is in the primaries, unironically. After that you are voting for the better of two candidates and any vote outside of that is still a decision between two candidates.

It wasn't the massing of troops. It was the massing of blood and other perishables. You don't do that for drills.

I'm not sure how you would suggest providing aid to Gaza without it being considered funding Hamas. That's the ultimate issue with this narrative. It's using a relative and unfortunate good thing as reasons to demonize Israel.

If you think that only 7481 civilians have been killed in Ukraine, I don't know what to tell you in terms of how believable you think your narrative is.

Literally more Ukrainian civilians have been killed than Gazan's in their entirety, even if you believe the Palistinian authority claims that not one air strike has resulted in a legal insurgent death.

Your source uses out of date data from Ukraine and additionally data biased to government confirmed civilian deaths which is biased by the Palistinian authority. It's literally a perfect example of propaganda.

Putin has killed less Ukranian civilians since his invasion than israel has done in a month.

The fact that you seriously wrote this is legitimately funny to me. You are so far up the Russian propaganda hole that there's no recovering you.

It is a city. A concentration camp is something that is made for production and absolutely involves disarmament. This does not meet a single definition unless you are basing your entire worldview off Russian state sponsored media.

I think it's just different. Not incredibly better but not worse. People hate change.

Iran sides with anyone who is against the west right now and from their point of view they are completely justified.

Yes and you do realize how that supports my narrative, right?

America bombed one of their Generals without provocation and is actively boycotting them.

See your own comment above for provocation.

America doesn't give a shit about Ukraine either, they are about to drop them and fuck them over just like they did to the Kurds.

No you, also fuck you for thinking we don't care. Some of us care too much.

The West has ravaged the middle east and Africa to steal natural resources.

Natural resources that we let the locals control...

All democracies were assassinated to install American puppets in the middle east and French and British ones in Africa. (remember the South African Apartheid???)

Democracies are perpetually at odds with liberal values. I'm not going to discuss the nuances with someone as black and white as you.

What we are seeing in Palestine today is what the west (first mostly Britain and France, now also America) has been doing for a century now.

If you think that's bad, you should see literally every war ever involving a city.

An Iranian theocratic general in Iraq that was absolutely in no way involved in the destabilisation and insurgency in Iraq. He was just there for holiday. Wake up. If that wasn't enough for you then maybe the active supply and support of Russia against Ukraine is. I suppose those Iranian Soldiers that were hit in Ukraine were there for the beaches then?

I addressed all of this in my original comment concerning proxies and proportional responses.

That's certainly an unpopular opinion. You have three opinions that can manifest in terms of an ideal society that can cover the needs here.

One is where all the needs are provided by the state aka directed communism which is the exact system that typically immediately fails (USSR and CCP tried it) and leads to famine. Almost everyone is against this outcome and system.

The second is referring back to bartering which is arguably not more civilized by definition.

The third is a post scarcity world which is not currently the case. Even Star Trek had currency for things beyond their needs. Very few people think we are in a post scarcity world currently.

There is a fourth which is typically held by anarchists which requires people to give up power at even a local level and prejudice to magically disappear so also not a popular opinion in terms of people that think it is possible.

There's also the high level narrative that this must overcome in which people are entitled to the value of their labor. This assures that this is not possible.

There's a lot of discussion to be had here but congrats on finding an opinion that is truly unpopular.

Western liberals are not shouting death to Iran at every rally nor are they conducting escalatory actions that are not proportional. There is a distinctive difference. Sanctions are ramped up and down in direct response to rhetoric and violent actions by proxies around the middle east. You are apparently blind to these.

I don't know why you are getting downvoted. It's true and you don't need to be pro-russian or believe it to acknowledge the propaganda.

Purple is for joint operations.

The propaganda is strong against the Western system. There is an argument to be made that the origins of this conflict are in energy finds in the Black Sea. Ukraine is uniquely positioned to take advantage of access to the European and Asian markets. Competition in these sections would threaten oligarch monopolies. These energy monopolies are granted to the oligarchs by Putin himself and this is the entire basis of power in the Russian Federation.

This is simultaneously the reason for the conflict and why the oligarchs have been lock step the entire way.

It's this capitalism? Absolutely not.

Is it economic power? Absolutely so.