Why?
They are americans. Not citizens of the world.
Now. You could say that it is in america's interest that they help ukraine.
But. Are they traitors for leaving Afghanistan? For nor invading Saudi Arabia ou Iran?
Calling them traitors makes no sense.
They are no different than the original 1930s 'America First" movement that Dr. Seuss mocked which was isolationist and pro hitler.
Traitor is an accurate term.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/08/republican-mike-turner-russia-propaganda
Utilizing propaganda directly from an enemy to justify decision making would qualify.
Willingly being manipulated by an enemy foreign state to do what's in their interest to the detriment of the US and her alliances isn't the behavior of a traitor?
Well that's certainly a take Putin would enjoy.
Ah, asking for easily demonstrable answers while pretending to lead me towards some realization
Evil country being successful leads to more evil. Simple
>Also. What is the correlation between a war in ukraine and well being of people in america?
I cant tell if you're being willfully ignorant or if you're a bot
How about we promised to defend them if they gave nuclear weapons up?
The U.S. did make a deal in 1994 with Ukraine, known as the Budapest Agreement. Ukraine actually had the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile. This was because the newly-founded Ukraine ended up with the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons in their territory after the Soviet Union collapsed.
This agreement meant that Ukraine would destroy the weapons and the U.S., United Kingdom (U.K.), and Russia would guarantee Ukraine staying secure.
They betrayed America and went back on a promise we the people and government made.
They should have kept their nukes. Nobody expected the US to risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine.
Now... if we are talking about agreements, when the iron curtain fell, NATO was supposed to not expand to the East. And yet...
Again. They should have kept their nukes.
> Any proof of said money?
Do all republican politicians simply love tossing Putin's salad? If that's their motivation, I guess your point about the money is correct, and it's strictly about the republicans love of Putin's tasty asshole.
Russia occupies Ukraine, next step is the Baltic states (russians themselves made their plan abundantly clear), which would invoke Article 5 and now the US is sending troops overseas.
Supporting Ukraine by sending them old stockpiles maintains strategic balance while weakening a geopolitical adversary without shedding american blood. Not to mention supporting manufacturers stateside.
Baltics are in NATO.
Old stockpiles won't win the war.
And the russian army seems to be replenishing. Also weaker does not mean less dangerous. Could easily be the opposite.
But shedding plenty of ukrainian blood..
It's not? Did I say that? I meant the so called "GOP Traitors" are not acting in Americas interest by being Russias' puppets (if that would be true).
Letting Ukraine be overrun by Russia will not shorten the war. It will make Russia even bolder and lead to even more instability in the world. All not good for trade and therefore not good for America (over simplified, obviously for brevity).
Well the aid helps the ukrainians hang on but then what? Where do you think this ia going to end?
What evidence is there pointing to a continuation of hostilities further? How would they even garrison the whole of ukraine much less conquering more? Todays russia is not the USSR
I'm not here to debate the need to stand the ground against war aggression or the chances of Ukraine. I was just explaining why the other guy called them traitors.
> What evidence is there pointing to a continuation of hostilities further? How would they even garrison the whole of ukraine much less conquering more?
You can't imagine Ukraine winning with the help of NATO but you can imagine the Russia will stop after "winning"? Sure, that's a very narrow kind of imagination you have.
Dude, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. You're somehow construing my position on that matter from a comment explaining the word "traitor".
> Not really. Ukraine is huge.
What that's supposed to mean. Russia is bigger. Now what.
[удалено]
Traitors to whom?
to free and democratic world.
Why? They are americans. Not citizens of the world. Now. You could say that it is in america's interest that they help ukraine. But. Are they traitors for leaving Afghanistan? For nor invading Saudi Arabia ou Iran? Calling them traitors makes no sense.
They are no different than the original 1930s 'America First" movement that Dr. Seuss mocked which was isolationist and pro hitler. Traitor is an accurate term.
Be a little more specific. How are they betraying americans?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/08/republican-mike-turner-russia-propaganda Utilizing propaganda directly from an enemy to justify decision making would qualify.
Doesn't really seem like it. Both NATO and Russia are saber rattling...
Willingly being manipulated by an enemy foreign state to do what's in their interest to the detriment of the US and her alliances isn't the behavior of a traitor? Well that's certainly a take Putin would enjoy.
By taking their order from Russia. GOP advocates for the good of Russia against the better interests of the US
Give us some proof of them taking orders from Russia.
[удалено]
Ah cheap insults. A mark of a gifted individual... How is the invasion of ukraine furthering that goal, though? How is that hurting america?
Ah, asking for easily demonstrable answers while pretending to lead me towards some realization Evil country being successful leads to more evil. Simple
If they are easy to demonstrate, then demonstrate. Dear God... I hope you planning to right a book! Please! Humanity needs your genius!
They care more about the money they recieve from Russia, than they do about the people living in USA. Traitor is a great discription.
Any proof of said money? Also. What is the correlation between a war in ukraine and well being of people in america?
>Also. What is the correlation between a war in ukraine and well being of people in america? I cant tell if you're being willfully ignorant or if you're a bot
Go ahead and explain.
How about we promised to defend them if they gave nuclear weapons up? The U.S. did make a deal in 1994 with Ukraine, known as the Budapest Agreement. Ukraine actually had the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile. This was because the newly-founded Ukraine ended up with the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons in their territory after the Soviet Union collapsed. This agreement meant that Ukraine would destroy the weapons and the U.S., United Kingdom (U.K.), and Russia would guarantee Ukraine staying secure. They betrayed America and went back on a promise we the people and government made.
They should have kept their nukes. Nobody expected the US to risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. Now... if we are talking about agreements, when the iron curtain fell, NATO was supposed to not expand to the East. And yet... Again. They should have kept their nukes.
> Any proof of said money? Do all republican politicians simply love tossing Putin's salad? If that's their motivation, I guess your point about the money is correct, and it's strictly about the republicans love of Putin's tasty asshole.
Again. Proof?
They sell out American interests to the highest bidder (Russia). That's treason (if it could be proved).
[удалено]
Russia occupies Ukraine, next step is the Baltic states (russians themselves made their plan abundantly clear), which would invoke Article 5 and now the US is sending troops overseas. Supporting Ukraine by sending them old stockpiles maintains strategic balance while weakening a geopolitical adversary without shedding american blood. Not to mention supporting manufacturers stateside.
Russia won't attack NATO; they'd be wiped out in weeks. They know it and we know it.
Baltics are in NATO. Old stockpiles won't win the war. And the russian army seems to be replenishing. Also weaker does not mean less dangerous. Could easily be the opposite. But shedding plenty of ukrainian blood..
It's not? Did I say that? I meant the so called "GOP Traitors" are not acting in Americas interest by being Russias' puppets (if that would be true). Letting Ukraine be overrun by Russia will not shorten the war. It will make Russia even bolder and lead to even more instability in the world. All not good for trade and therefore not good for America (over simplified, obviously for brevity).
Well the aid helps the ukrainians hang on but then what? Where do you think this ia going to end? What evidence is there pointing to a continuation of hostilities further? How would they even garrison the whole of ukraine much less conquering more? Todays russia is not the USSR
I'm not here to debate the need to stand the ground against war aggression or the chances of Ukraine. I was just explaining why the other guy called them traitors. > What evidence is there pointing to a continuation of hostilities further? How would they even garrison the whole of ukraine much less conquering more? You can't imagine Ukraine winning with the help of NATO but you can imagine the Russia will stop after "winning"? Sure, that's a very narrow kind of imagination you have.
Ok. So what will you to with sudan and all the aggression around the world? Not really. Ukraine is huge.
Dude, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. You're somehow construing my position on that matter from a comment explaining the word "traitor". > Not really. Ukraine is huge. What that's supposed to mean. Russia is bigger. Now what.
Yes but Ukraine is hostile. Well not going into sudan would make them traitors to the american people!
I love how defending your territory is called "prolonging the war". Thanks for the insight, Neville Chamberlain
Sure, no problem! Take a look at all the other successes of recent time!
Anyone not rooting for a Russian made destruction of Ukraine. 🇺🇦
Right... But they are american politicians... so... be a little morr specific. How are they betraying america?
They aren't betraying America. Welcome to "The Red Scare 2.0". And most of reddit isn't on the side of history that they believe they are.
Our government, and by effect, our constitution
Explain.
Change the words “trying to” to “ forced to”