The United States has now promised, or given, more than $113 billion to Ukraine. Why won't the rest of the UN step up to help?

[linuxares]

Why do people here not realize where they money goes to? Back to Boeing, Lockheed etc. You honestly think it's not also a lobby effort by these fat cats? Come on... Plus Ukraine got a fuckton of agriculture.

You actually think your "tax money" would go back to you? Give me a break... the US lobby industry overpower your single voice by a massive margine. Doesn't matter if it's your elephant or donkey at the seat.

 

[MicroNut99]

Why won't the rest of the UN step up to help?

1. Prevent WW3, the US and its UN Allies would have stepped in if the Ukraine were already part of the UN.
Arguably Putin would have never invaded in the first place if the Ukraine was part of the UN.
2. Slow Ugly Burn, to wait out Putin's naked aggression without sparking WW3.
3. Money, the USA's number 1 export is arms/war. Nuclear bombs are bad for business.

No one wants to see this.
Its a slow grind.
Exactly the inspiration for my icon.

 

[Xzi]

Why do people here not realize where they money goes to? Back to Boeing, Lockheed etc. You honestly think it's not also a lobby effort by these fat cats? Come on... Plus Ukraine got a fuckton of agriculture.

You actually think your "tax money" would go back to you? Give me a break... the US lobby industry overpower your single voice by a massive margine. Doesn't matter if it's your elephant or donkey at the seat.

Yeah, corporations would make their money either way. The US so rarely does the right thing in these situations, however, to the extent that even doing the right thing for the wrong reasons I'm willing to take as a win.

 

[KingVamp]

US isn't about to go bail them out after their war crimes.

Well, the only way this would happen, is if the next leader of Russia gives US significant concessions.

 

[TomSwitch]

Because is more profitable. War is a business and it produces a huge profit, while taking care of their own citizens doesn't.

That happens when the voting system is flawed ( for the weak and the poor ). When money can influence or even determine the results (of pseudo democracy) it's not surprising it is for the rich. Some rich people wanted it is all there is to it.

 

[Xzi]

Well, the only way this would happen, is if the next leader of Russia gives US significant concessions.

They'd have to agree to foot the entire bill for rebuilding Ukraine first and foremost, better odds of winning the lottery I'd say.

 

[CMDreamer]

That happens when the voting system is flawed ( for the weak and the poor ). When money can influence or even determine the results it's not surprising it is for the rich.

That happens when there's no such thing as a conflict of interests for politicians that common people can argue about.

A great vid that explains it all:

 

[tabzer]

She's sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Where is her tinfoil hat?

 

[Xzi]

She's sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Where is her tinfoil hat?

"Capitalism has only ever had a positive influence over the US government!" - Tabzer, probably

 

[tabzer]

"Capitalism has only ever had a positive influence over the US government!" - Tabzer, probably

You thought I was serious. I know it’s asking a lot, but don’t be so daft.

 

[Xzi]

You thought I was serious. I know it’s asking a lot, but don’t be so daft.

Put an /s next time then, it's not like it would be off-brand of you to deny facts just because they're presented by a progressive.

 

[tabzer]

Put an /s next time then, it's not like it would be off-brand of you to deny facts just because they're presented by a progressive.

I am progressive and I don’t deny facts. I just often think you are a moron.

 

[Xzi]

I am progressive

See, that you don't have to put the /s on, everybody knows it's sarcasm because they can read your post history.

 

[tabzer]

See, that you don't have to put the /s on, everybody knows it's sarcasm because they can read your post history.

I can be progressive and be embarrassed for people who think they are doing good for progressive movements.

There are a lot of “progressives” in this forum that are just jealous of not having power/control.

 

[Xzi]

I can be progressive and be embarrassed for people who think they are doing good for progressive movements.

There are a lot of “progressives” in this forum that are just jealous of not having power/control.

"I'm progressive but I don't believe progressives should have any power or control in government."

You must be amazing at playing Imposter in Among Us. /s

 

[tabzer]

"I'm progressive but I don't believe progressives should have any power or control in government."

You must be amazing at playing Imposter in Among Us. /s

I don’t believe “government” should have any “power or control”. I like localized communities that can establish balance with their environment.

Your means to an end is just more tyranny under a different name.

 

[Xzi]

I don’t believe “government” should have any “power or control”. I like localized communities that can establish balance with their environment.

Starting over in a bubble, with maybe a third of the Earth's current human population, I'm in total concurrence with that. It's more or less anarchy you're talking about, total personal freedom.

Back in the real world, though, we've got these all-powerful, immortal beings called corporations. You take all power away from government, you're giving absolute power to them instead, and enabling 100% oligarchy. That's how you end up with every dystopian sci-fi movie ever conceived, and they don't believe the planet's environment is worth a wet fart.

 

[tabzer]

Starting over in a bubble, with maybe a third of the Earth's current human population, I'm in total concurrence with that. It's more or less anarchy you're talking about, total personal freedom.

No, it’s not. It’s community, something you are obviously still trying to understand. Obligations still exist.

Back in the real world, though, we've got these all-powerful, immortal beings called corporations. You take all power away from government, you're giving absolute power to them instead, and enabling 100% oligarchy. That's how you end up with every dystopian sci-fi movie ever conceived, and they don't believe the planet's environment is worth a wet fart.

Oligarchy exists, already, because of the government and its relationship with corporations, as pointed out by AOC. How do you “take power away from government” and how does that functionally give it to corporations?

By playing the game of monopoly, you already lose.

 

[Xzi]

No, it’s not. It’s community, something you are obviously still trying to understand.

Small communities all governing themselves is anarchy/libertarianism. Or tribalism if you prefer, though that can turn ugly fast.

Oligarchy exists, already, because of the government and its relationship with corporations, as pointed out by AOC.

Oligarchy exists because Reagan sold the soul of this nation for short-term profit, and it's only gotten worse from there. As long as we still have our democracy and the capacity to vote in people like AOC though, we have the potential to change things for the better. There's no reason to preemptively surrender that potential, or our constitutional rights which are still (mostly) intact.

How do you “take power away from government” and how does that functionally give it to corporations?

You limit the ability to regulate corporations through legislation/court decisions, or you eliminate governmental departments in charge of regulating them. Republicans have been doing this for years, and the EPA in particular has been hit hard.

 

[tabzer]

You say things can “can turn ugly”, as if they haven’t been—anarchy isn’t a real thing, man. There will always be a method of governance.

AOC being in government and paving the way for human liberty through more legislation makes as much sense as republicans participating in government in the first place. Blaming Reagan is like blaming Trump. It’s an excuse to hold onto the only thing you are familiar with; crying.

You propose that government only exists to keep corporations in check, but it was by such establishments that they became as threatening as they did. The industrial revolution was “regulated” into being.