Read It and Weep. The MSM will report this in ... another year or two?
Editorial boards, listen up? This really is not a conspiracy theory but an accurate timeline, friends:
Ukraine news arc:
- Hunter Biden is paid exorbitant funds by Ukrainian energy firm for board seat with no active participation and clear references to benefits of being connected to Biden family.
- We are told we need to impeach Trump for him asking Zelensky to look into possible Biden-family corruption with the Ukrainian government/country, during a call about military aid funding from the U.S.
- Trump is impeached over Ukraine while Biden plays high ground and Ukraine tacitly backs that Biden is clean and clear. Trump survives.
- Biden is controversially elected after a poor drawing in the primary states, and his opponents conveniently drop out to let him win. President Biden starts drawing weird and inconsistent red lines around Ukraine/Russia
- Russia invades Ukraine
- Biden immediately begins unparalleled executive action to punish Russia and begin actively supporting Ukrainian war effort/
- Biden ramps up efforts to support Ukrainian war efforts to include funding, banking actions, SIGINT, provision of arms, and public complete alignment against Russia to the point of basically saying we are at war with Russia. Meanwhile the MSM continues bleating about how the country as a whole -- the polls show it!! -- unquestionably supports "Ukrainian freedom" and pretty much buries Joe's off-the-cuff comment about taking out Putin as the end goal. No reporters question what winning looks like in Ukraine, when the billions being exported abroad will end, or questions the goals or timelines of how long America will be in this thing as civil society our country crumples here at home.
Did I capture that arc right? Any chance we can lose some of the homogenous editorial foreign-policy writers, and maybe hire some diversity of viewpoints, other than the personal characteristic diversity hires who just... don't do foreign policy takes and leave that to the pro-war types? Maybe it's time for internal change, sooner rather than later, other than dropping a "con" war view every few weeks? That's not balance, fellas. hth
----------
Let me reintroduce the word QUAGMIRE to this conversation. One of you keyboard warriors can try and make the case we are not in a quagmire already. Go on. I’m waiting.
My response: But, it's not really a quagmire if the US has free elections every four years and an opportunity to nip this in the bud by voting the consistently pro-war bipartisans out. A clean sweep of the Biden administration and his supporters pulls the plug on the billions being transferred to escalate and entrap us: which is why we're hurriedly rushing and committing as many dollars now before the whole house of cards falls, I suspect...
We're coming up on 20 years now of the US invasion of Iraq, remember? March 2003, iirc. The young people don't remember, the old are gone, but we in the middle remember and we won't let that happen again on our watch. And, backed by the younger folk with their priorities planted here at home, trust me: we won't get fooled again.
The American people want wars that end quickly.
The Military Industrial Complex wants wars that take a long time.
Guess which one we're continuing to get?
My response: WE are the government, Kevin. Don't you forget it, even if the powers that be try to convince you otherwise. We've got the people power, the numbers, if not the wealth and powerful mouthpieces, and in a free America today with open communication systems, that still matters. #BelieveInFreedom #StandForTruthAndJustice
Serious Question: When was The last time the US won a war?
My response: Grenada, under Reagan. A nice, bite-size, get-in-get-out define-and-achieve the mission on a budget war. Nobody has a problem with that. But those were different times in America, different demographics too. And an old-school type leader who knew his people and wasn't captured by the elites.
gilbar, war is a thing that can change, and it can change very quickly, swinging from one extreme to the other. We do know that the Russians have called up a large number of troops to bolster their armies, but it appears that these troops are poorly trained, poorly supplied, and poorly equipped. There's also no indication that the Russian military leadership has gotten much better. That said, if you throw enough bodies at a military objective you can usually make progress - something the Russians are familiar with in their history - but it can be extremely costly. Eventually, you do run out of reserves. You can win a war that way, but you need to meet the objectives before everything collapses.
Could the Ukrainians be losing? I suppose. They were definitely going to lose, then they were losing but not instantly, then they weren't losing, and then they were on the offensive and going to retake Crimea no problem. I'm not sure why I should take the word of "experts" anymore, especially ones that are not privy to all the facts on the ground - hint, no one is privy to all the facts on the ground - especially on a subject like war when propaganda and misinformation and disinformation are common tactics. I suppose this sort of war correspondence in the day of the Internet is interesting, but I don't think it works any better than, say, WWII reporting which was often wrong and confused.
My response: Put your money on the countries closest to the conflict, whose lives are being affected. It's not America's fight, and even Europe seems to acknowledge negotiations are needed now. Look at a globe, and consider reality when placing your bets, perhaps? Think of the British war against America, and who was predicted to win that one from across an ocean based on better-trained soldiers, better weapons, more wealth, etc.
Hth.
<< Home