Koreans didn't have spicy kimchi until quite recently.

The problem with Scotland is that it's full of... Belgians? Bugger.

Also Thin Lizzy was a favourite of his Majesty's.

>That's an impressively short-sighted worldview. Also, we've already been there, done that. Read about a guy called Chamberlain and his stance towards Hitler.

Comparing Russia to Hitler is kinda ridiculous. Russia has shown how dysfunctional their military is. Compared to Hitler Putin has no flex at all except in a very limited region.

It's fantasy to think he's a threat to a nuclear armed Europe. Hence why its no more important to most nations than countless other regional conflicts are. Were just racist because we think of Europeans are facing strife its exceptional.

>Which emergency in the US is underfunded SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of the UA-aid?

Were back to you saying things that presuppose things I don't say.

>And what exactly is the impact of the UA-aid on the fact that the Republican party reacts with a hissy fit every time anyone suggests anything REMOTELY pro-citizen in legislature?

That it was just as true 20 years ago and 40 years ago and 60 years ago when the modern political situation was less dire. America has always been this way and its consistent if uneven across multiple generations.

>Remind me again, how many poor people in the US are getting kidnapped, killed or their houses blown up daily?

Change Ukraine to rojava and magically we don't care. Maybe because it would piss off turkey and their value to nato supersedes our humanity. Ie. Hegemony.

>Nope. Most of that equipment was either already retired or scheduled to be retired. For instance, there's A LOT of Abrams tanks after the Marine Corps decided to completely change their strategy and removed armour.

It's dishonest to suggest its all free and never going to be replaced. The tanks aren't even the bulk of the support.

>Fair enough, although it certainly doesn't seem like it the last couple of years.

That's because you need to look beyond what the GOP does. It's lesser evil ism, not good VS evil.

>The US is a fundamentally broken democracy. No party ever has "full control" due to how much power lobbyists and the businesses behind them have gotten over the years.

Hence why the moral idea of helping Ukraine is superficial. It just so happens to appeal to it.

>I feel like I'm constantly saying the same thing over and over again and you're just flat out ignoring it.

You're saying something that presupposes something I never said and you keep saying it so I keep ignoring it.

Supporting Ukraine is in fact not the most important priority for any nation other than Ukraine and perhaps some of its vulnerable neighbours.

>Every country has various "buckets" of budget. The US is not taking money away from infrastructure or firefighting to send it out to Ukraine, it's using the military budget or the emergency budget. Aid or not, you wouldn't see a difference.

This presupposes these are unchangeable things. But there are emergencies in America that need funding, there ways to rebudget. But they don't because hegemony has priority over feeding and housing and giving medical care to Americans who can't afford it.

If poverty in America were treated like Ukraine is by media and politicians they'd unass all that money too.

>You also wouldn't see a difference because MOST of the aid is in the form of equipment and not money.

Equipment they'll pay to replace so it's still money to the arms manufacturers.

>As for "why aid for your own people is not possible" - ask the Republicans who are consequently blocking all attempts at a more "for people" legislation.

Naw, democrats are also guilty. They're just less guilty. Biden stopped a rail strike that was partly about safety issues and here we see the consequences of that anti union probusiness attitude.

Democrats would be considered milquetoast at best on many other democracies if the republicans weren't around, but they're also in the wealthiest nation on earth with limited ambition or ideological inclination toward big broad stroke solutions. Even if they had the full control of legislation they'd never do a proper new deal.

>Why wouldn't you separate people like Usain Bolt or Al Pacino from the likes of Jeff Bezos, Saudi royal family or George Soros?

Because once you get into those echelons you're part of it. And less wealthy people often play a key role anyway. Much of the liberal intelligentsia functions to explain why it's right and good that we're under a bankers thumb.

There's no value in being too granular about wealth. Many people abuse workers while owning businesses worth a few mil.

Class war doesn't need to be this complicated.

And a lot of the political machine is made up of enthusiastic not very well off staffers and prospects for the higher echelons of political power. No need to point at only some of them. It's like how after the Ohio train crash people said don't just blame the ceo, learn the names of the shareholders and board members too.

>So why take the money specifically away from Ukrainian aid instead of a million things you COULD take it away from locally?

The real question is why is a firehose of aid to them possible with so little debate but for your own people it's not?

Pure amateur musings here.

Perhaps because thunder in spring means heavy nourishing rainfall. Thunder in fall is less nice?

>The concept of class warfare is just a ploy to give the poor a scapegoat out of the rich, and turn them against each other as adversaries.

Separating the rich from the bankers is like saying it's not the republicans or democrats, it's the politicians.

>There's hardly anything better to spend money on, right now

Lol there are endless things to better spend it on if your own population is suffering deprivation. But America is a rich it can fund both. But that doesn't mean defending Ukraine is more important than averting the a suffering of your own people due to your own actions.

That is the same thing. The mainstream of culture, discourse and politics is driven by the owners.

People need to remember that back during the labour movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries the workers and unions had to start their own newspapers to combat the propaganda of the bosses.

After WW2 people forgot that its a class struggle and by Watergate people are celebrating a media that was more concerned with documenting the attacks by one political elite on another than the enormous class war waged on the new left and black power and anti war and American Indian movement by the American intelligence community ie. COINTELPRO.

It's only become worse but decades ago Noam Chomsky wrote and lectured about this extensively.

Given the facts around what happened in Portland he's the biased one.

He sounds showy from his interview.

I got as far as him saying antifa was destroying Portland to remember that just because you're a philosopher doesn't mean you know Jack shit about politics or in this case the facts of what actually happened.

He's the guy who taught how to overcome one's biases?

It's actually not a good take to suggest that in discussing Nazism you can invalidate someone's comparison by saying "but there are no death caps".

It's ridiculous really. It reduces such a broad systemic evil into a single point and makes drawing any parallels impossible because it's not 1941 in eastern Europe.

This is circular. You had a bad take and that's that.

Why would you bring death camps in at all then? I feel like you're back peddling and trying to not act like you are.

Most notable doesn't mean when it's mentioned that this is what's being referenced.

>and the most notable feature of Nazi Germany.

And that's worst thing about our perception of Nazism. As if unless you're engineering such industrial murder there's no right to discuss its qualities as they are found outside the third Reich.

So much happened before the final solution.

>But they would most certainly demand they keep what they conquered in mainland Asia.

By the end actually they were basically down to "don't kill the emperor" and the US still pressed.