-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Anti-War Activist Medea Benjamin with Another View of the War
- Thread starter Antiwar
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2016
- Messages
- 34,587
- Reaction score
- 19,252
- Location
- Norfolk Virginia area.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
She's a dipshit.
Russia is only reaffirming the need for NATO, while Miss Dipshit rants about getting free stuff.
Russia is only reaffirming the need for NATO, while Miss Dipshit rants about getting free stuff.
Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 109,857
- Reaction score
- 27,530
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 34,183
- Reaction score
- 15,531
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
There are interesting topics to look at.
Should NATO have been disbanded? Should it be now?
What about the strong protections NATO provides to countries Putin wants to claim? Wouldn't the loss of NATO make them more attractive targets to Putin?
Have NATO aggressions been justified? Etc.
How would she stop Putin in Ukraine? I only listened to part of the interview if she answers that. There are many more questions also, such as about how to fix the UN.
Should NATO have been disbanded? Should it be now?
What about the strong protections NATO provides to countries Putin wants to claim? Wouldn't the loss of NATO make them more attractive targets to Putin?
Have NATO aggressions been justified? Etc.
How would she stop Putin in Ukraine? I only listened to part of the interview if she answers that. There are many more questions also, such as about how to fix the UN.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2018
- Messages
- 31,109
- Reaction score
- 15,048
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The entire media circus is just entirely off the rails with no real thoughtful commentary coming out of any of them.
I just saw Alexander Vindman and Simon Shuster talking head their way through a bunch of nonsense. Of the two Vindman made the most sense, but just barely. Vindman started the entire discussion with a flat misstatement insisting that the signers of the Budapest Memorandum were "guarantors" of some sort. There were no guarantees of any sort in Budapest. There were simply "commitments to assistance". You can argue what is and what is not a commitment to assistance. However you cannot argue that it is a guarantee of any sort. You can argue that actually invading Ukraine is most definitely NOT upholding your signed commitment to assistance to Ukraine. This is where Russia finds itself at the moment. So in truth Vindman having begun his argument for direct involvement by western allies begins with a misstatement regarding Budapest which entirely colors his entire analysis.
It is however easy to make the case that Russia is acting in a manner entirely contrary to its commitments to assist Ukraine should it be attacked. Being the attacker makes it damn near impossible for Russia to maintain its Budapest commitments, though nobody in this big of media nonsense cared to mention that. One could also make the case that Ukraine should have held out for more in the Budapest Memorandum before agreeing to give up its nukes.
Then Simon Shuster went off and tried to claim that since certainly Americans were at the facility in Western Ukraine being used as a staging area for foreigners coming into Ukraine to fight for Ukraine that was attacked by Russian missile strike it means that Russia has already crossed a line with regard to US or NATO involvement. Here Vindman accurately corrected Shuster by pointing out that American Citizens deciding to enter the country to fight for Ukraine has nothing to do with decisions of US government or NATO or any other nation state. People are free to do as they choose and if their decisions result in their death, they made their choice and died for it.
The point is, this discussion took about 30 minutes of air time and did not really provide any useful information or any answers to anything. Yet the talking heads yammered on and I am sure some in the audience dutifully listened as if it was worthwhile discussion.
I have rarely found ANY of the talking head sessions or even the videos posted in this forum helpful in any sort.
I just saw Alexander Vindman and Simon Shuster talking head their way through a bunch of nonsense. Of the two Vindman made the most sense, but just barely. Vindman started the entire discussion with a flat misstatement insisting that the signers of the Budapest Memorandum were "guarantors" of some sort. There were no guarantees of any sort in Budapest. There were simply "commitments to assistance". You can argue what is and what is not a commitment to assistance. However you cannot argue that it is a guarantee of any sort. You can argue that actually invading Ukraine is most definitely NOT upholding your signed commitment to assistance to Ukraine. This is where Russia finds itself at the moment. So in truth Vindman having begun his argument for direct involvement by western allies begins with a misstatement regarding Budapest which entirely colors his entire analysis.
It is however easy to make the case that Russia is acting in a manner entirely contrary to its commitments to assist Ukraine should it be attacked. Being the attacker makes it damn near impossible for Russia to maintain its Budapest commitments, though nobody in this big of media nonsense cared to mention that. One could also make the case that Ukraine should have held out for more in the Budapest Memorandum before agreeing to give up its nukes.
Then Simon Shuster went off and tried to claim that since certainly Americans were at the facility in Western Ukraine being used as a staging area for foreigners coming into Ukraine to fight for Ukraine that was attacked by Russian missile strike it means that Russia has already crossed a line with regard to US or NATO involvement. Here Vindman accurately corrected Shuster by pointing out that American Citizens deciding to enter the country to fight for Ukraine has nothing to do with decisions of US government or NATO or any other nation state. People are free to do as they choose and if their decisions result in their death, they made their choice and died for it.
The point is, this discussion took about 30 minutes of air time and did not really provide any useful information or any answers to anything. Yet the talking heads yammered on and I am sure some in the audience dutifully listened as if it was worthwhile discussion.
I have rarely found ANY of the talking head sessions or even the videos posted in this forum helpful in any sort.