World News

31453 readers

1098 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

411

McConnell on Ukraine proxy war: "We haven’t lost a single American in this war. Most of the money that we spend, is spent on replenishing weapons, so it’s actually employing people here."[paraphrased] (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

782 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Not a single lib will change their minds after hearing this.

Are liberals generally opposed to supporting Ukraine? What opinion are they not going to change?

[–] [email protected] 37 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because the reasons to support Ukraine are supposed to be noble and not completely self-interested. That's why there is popular support for it. McConnell admitting that it's about funneling money into the military industrial complex, at least in part, ought to make at least some people reconsider their assumptions

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Ah I see now. It's about the motivations behind the support. Thanks for the insight!

It's actually quite interesting. Personally, I try to remain neutral on politics but I'm definitely fed a left-leaning social media diet. Within that content, the general reason to support Ukraine is still self centered. "Go beat up the Russian military because they're the bad guys and our cost is super low." The nobility of this support feels like a happy side effect. But the really interesting part is that "funneling money into the military industrial complex" simply isn't focused at all. This is the first time I've considered that aspect.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago

neutral on politics

Yeah... About that. There is no neutrality in politics.

Why don't you go look up what the US and Saudi did to Yemen over the last decade and decide how you feel about sitting on that fence.

Go beat up the Russian military because they're the bad guys and our cost is super low.

They're not beating up the Russian military. They're fertilizing the fields of Ukraine that the Rada is going to sell to Blackrock. There's nothing noble about this. NATO pushed and pushed and pushed until the RF took the bait, and now they're bleeding the RF using Ukrainians because they don't give a shit about Ukrainians. Christ this is so frustrating ISTG if people would just read Sun Tzu they'd understand everything and we wouldn't need to have these absurd conversations over and over.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You don't need to go super far left to find convincing arguments against US foreign policy. Noam Chomsky is a mainstream intellectual after all, and he coined the phrase "consent manufacturing".

The idea that the US acts in total self interest should be presumed true in all cases, but that doesn't on its own defeat the idea that its intervention in Ukraine is good. The logical next step is to ask ourselves whether this intervention ever had any chance of changing the outcome of the conflict at all. If it didn't, and most people here would agree that it didn't, then the US' involvement amounts to wartime profiteering at the cost of human lives.

edit: I should also add, there's good reason to believe that NATO expansion is what caused the conflict, and that the west did this in spite of clear and explicit warnings from Russia

[–] [email protected] 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Opposed? Liberals are fully on board with endless war in Ukraine. It's a bipartisan consensus.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago

This thread is evidence of it. The quiet part gets shouted and rather than accepting that this is what MLs have been saying for two years, the libs are doubling down. Will they now accept the truth behind the quip, 'To the last Ukrainian?' Not a chance. Oblivious.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ya that's my understanding was well. Which is why I asked the question.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago

Your question was: Are liberals generally opposed to supporting Ukraine?

The answer is no. I dunno what to tell you.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago

Liberals are just as bloodthirsty as their fashy counterparts, they just need to have their own slightly different words for why it is okay.

It took like 6 months for mainstream liberals to feel 100% comfortable thinking of Russians as subhuman monsters deserving of any and all violence, dredging up old-school orientalist tropes, and celebrating snuff videos, making special exception for them so long as they are accompanied by a little story about how it's happening to Russians. A random Russian civilian got attacked by a shark in Egypy and liberals were rah-rahing for the shark.

Liberals will be pro-war until their corporate masters tell them not to be. Then, like with Iraq, they might pretend they werw anti-war the whole time.