Skiluros

This is not unique to Arab Americans.

There is a decent amount of Ukrainian Americans who support independent Ukraine, but also think Trump would stop the war and be a better choice for Ukraine. Although it seems that this is somewhat less common than in the Arab American community (I could be wrong).

This is of course complete bullshit. Trump is a corrupt American oligarch with degenerate tendencies. Oligarchs protect their gangs, expand their territory and give kickbacks to partner gangs (e.g. allowing unsafe “full self driving” rules for Elmo’s organization). This is not even a Trump or American thing, this is universal.

With respect to Gaza, the Israeli oligarch gangs have far more money and influence on Trump’s crew. Then there is also kinship ties.

But this was a shrewd move by Trump’s crew. I think some proportion of the Arab American community will become life-long supporters irrespective of what happens in Gaza (I think their concern for Gaza is a bit more nuanced than what one may think at first glance).

Agreed. I am Ukrainian. Family had to leave Donbas in 2014.

Yes, arming Ukraine in 2014 with ballistic missiles (among other things) and authorizing strikes deep into russian territory would have been not only the right thing to do, but also a key requirement of the Budapest memorandum.

My comment was more in the context of real weapon deliveries only starting since the full scale invasion.

I remember how the Germans put a big stink when Ukraine started using the Bayraktar drones in the line of contact in Donbas before the full scale invasion. What a bunch of spineless cowards.

Good news, but why did it take nearly three years?

The ATACMS, Patriots, F16, modern tanks should have been delivered in the first 12 months to strike russia when they were less organized.

Ukraine is the only country in the world that has the full moral authority to develop nuclear weapons. We are the only country to give up nukes and look where that got us.

That being said “moral authority” isn’t worth shit in this world.

South Korea, Poland and the Baltic nations should honestly try and develop their own nukes too.

Ukraine is the only country in the world that has the full moral authority to develop nuclear weapons. We are the only country to give up nukes and look where that got us.

That being said “moral authority” isn’t worth shit in this world.

South Korea, Poland and the Baltic nations should honestly try and develop their own nukes too.

Lack of courage and bold ideas from liberal democrats.

I did say “mere propaganda”. I think there is a difference between complete dismissal (which your thread OP implied, no nuances whatsoever) and recognition that while it is government funded, it still offers things that are not available in nominally independent private US news sources.

It feels like we are arguing about things. 😜

What made you think I don’t know this?

I was commenting on a completely different topic; the fact that nominally independent American private news sources often have lower quality content with less nuance than VOA which is government funded.

And I wouldn’t discount public funding as legitimate option. Read up on the BBC.

And the incumbent doesn’t need VOA. There are more than enough mass scale private networks for propaganda distribution.

I wouldn’t discount VOA as mere “American propaganda”. I read articles by them in multiple languages (while recognizing the source) and they offer far more nuanced takes than most nominally independent private US-based news sources (I am not talking about just Fox News); at least from my experience of living in the US for several years.

Compare the tone and style of this article with a similar article from a private US entity.

Without understanding the particulars of US legal matters, it seems to me that it is pretty obvious that the US judiciary is deeply corrupt. Maybe not in a day to day manner, but in a broader “subservient to oligarchs” sense.

In my country, we also have supreme court members getting bribed by oligarchs and judiciary groupings that act to protect their interests while working as a for hire team for the highest bidding oligarchs (similar to the American “Federalist Society”). Sure, in the US the whole process is done with a bigger focus on PR; lot’s of pomp and word salad about “interpretation of the constitution”, but I personally did not find that in any way convincing when I lived in the US. Seemed like a ruse for plausible deniability and keeping the plebs from asking too many uncomfortable questions.

The bigger question, that I was discussing with my American friend, is why the main US opposition party (that claims to oppose of excesses of the far right) does not take a serious approach to corruption in the judiciary. Specifically we were discussing the supreme court succession late in Trump’s 1st term. There is almost a surrealist, comedic quality to the whole thing. It is unlikely a political force can get anywhere with such a myopic approach.

I am aware of that. And I am also aware of the dynamics of their GDP carbon intensity.

Do you really think if India and China were given $1 trillion a year each they would suddenly stop their expansion of coal power generation or even use a majority of that sum to combat climate change?

I don’t have any issues with helping countries combating climate change (financially or otherwise), I do have issues with the “global south” framing.

Is China part of the global south? India?

They are both building out a massive amount of coal powered plants and will continue doing so because it suits their interests. You think giving India and China $1 trillion a year each will change this dynamic?

I can understand specific bi-lateral initiates (or even structured multi-lateral ones). But the whole “global south” discussion is extremely simplistic.

I think it’s worth taking a more nuanced view on the “global south” vs. “global north” discussion. A lot of the leadership of the “global south” doesn’t believe in climate change and they have no interest in any kind of good faith actions on this issue. Why would you give them money with such an attitude?

Why do you think they are being fooled? If anything I think one of the appeal of Trump is the fact that he owns his corruption and shadiness.

Historically that’s not necessarily the case. Authoritarians who come to power via somewhat democratic means in their first terms to be much more mild relative to subsequent terms where they solidify their hold on institutions.

One notable example would be Putin’s first term (which is largely seen to be a fair win) or even when Medvedev was ordered to warm the seat. It always only gets worse, at least from historical examples.

The bigger question is whether the US opposition has any willingness to fight, which I don’t believe to be the case.

Trump winning the popular vote would be hilarious.

Btw, I am not being petty. I am Ukrainian so we got a lot at stake. But that being said most Ukrainians (and the government) thought Trump would win.

Bread and circuses. Or Big Macs and iPhones if you want the modern equivalent.