Welcome to the EGGhead Forum - a great place to visit and packed with tips and EGGspert advice! You can also join the conversation and get more information and amazing kamado recipes by following Big Green Egg to Experience our World of Flavor™ at:
Want to see how the EGG is made? Click to Watch
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Pinterest | Youtube | Vimeo
Share your photos by tagging us and using the hashtag #BigGreenEgg.
Share your photos by tagging us and using the hashtag #BigGreenEgg.
Want to see how the EGG is made? Click to Watch
OT subject but worth a main-stream read- OT News Feeds...
Options
Comments
-
Ukraine, like a lot of countries, isn’t populated with just Ukrainians. There are a lot of ‘ethnic’ russians living there who have every right to. Their candidate won the election and was running the country the best he could when he made the decision to reject the Wests’ economic package and instead go with one offered by the russians. We then set him up for a coup and replaced him with a pro-western leader. Crimea is over 90% ethnic Russian, and they held a plebiscite to join Russia, which passed by a massive margin. Russia then annexed Crimea. We don’t recognize that because it was ‘unconstitutional’, whereas we had no problem with overthrowing their duly elected president. Russia already had a large naval base there, with a large contingent of troops. That was part of the arrangement when Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Those eastern provinces of Ukraine are fighting because they’re mostly Russian, don’t accept the new government, and don’t want to be left to the tender mercies of the army that has a few too many neo-nazis in it. The fact that Russia is aiding them is hardly surprising.
Bob
New Cumberland, PA
XL with the usual accessories -
The justifications for and effectiveness of US overseas interventions are seen very differently outside of the US. Moral superiority in specific theatres is also a tough position to maintain when supporting objectively unpleasant regimes in others. Is Putin worse than MBS in Saudi?Kayak said:The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:
-
Are the arguments being made to Russia here based on moral superiority? I don't think I've seen that from Blinken, but perhaps I've missed something.Eoin said:
The justifications for and effectiveness of US overseas interventions are seen very differently outside of the US. Moral superiority in specific theatres is also a tough position to maintain when supporting objectively unpleasant regimes in others. Is Putin worse than MBS in Saudi?Kayak said:The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:"I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike -
It's supposed to be based on doing what is right. Clearly in other areas, it's not based on what is right. There's a morality gap.JohnInCarolina said:
Are the arguments being made to Russia here based on moral superiority? I don't think I've seen that from Blinken, but perhaps I've missed something.Eoin said:
The justifications for and effectiveness of US overseas interventions are seen very differently outside of the US. Moral superiority in specific theatres is also a tough position to maintain when supporting objectively unpleasant regimes in others. Is Putin worse than MBS in Saudi?Kayak said:The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture: -
Yes, I understand the principle you’re relaying. My point is that I don’t think the current arguments being made by the US regarding Russia and Ukraine are based on the notion that the US occupies some moral high ground.Eoin said:
It's supposed to be based on doing what is right. Clearly in other areas, it's not based on what is right. There's a morality gap.JohnInCarolina said:
Are the arguments being made to Russia here based on moral superiority? I don't think I've seen that from Blinken, but perhaps I've missed something.Eoin said:
The justifications for and effectiveness of US overseas interventions are seen very differently outside of the US. Moral superiority in specific theatres is also a tough position to maintain when supporting objectively unpleasant regimes in others. Is Putin worse than MBS in Saudi?Kayak said:The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:"I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike -
JohnInCarolina said:
Yes, I understand the principle you’re relaying. My point is that I don’t think the current arguments being made by the US regarding Russia and Ukraine are based on the notion that the US occupies some moral high ground.Eoin said:
It's supposed to be based on doing what is right. Clearly in other areas, it's not based on what is right. There's a morality gap.JohnInCarolina said:
Are the arguments being made to Russia here based on moral superiority? I don't think I've seen that from Blinken, but perhaps I've missed something.Eoin said:
The justifications for and effectiveness of US overseas interventions are seen very differently outside of the US. Moral superiority in specific theatres is also a tough position to maintain when supporting objectively unpleasant regimes in others. Is Putin worse than MBS in Saudi?Kayak said:The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:
Blinken "We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend, including Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances". Sounds like taking the moral high ground.
-
To me that just reads like a basic statement of foreign policy. There isn’t anything in there that would be hypocritical with the US support of Saudi Arabia, for example, to your earlier point.Eoin said:JohnInCarolina said:
Yes, I understand the principle you’re relaying. My point is that I don’t think the current arguments being made by the US regarding Russia and Ukraine are based on the notion that the US occupies some moral high ground.Eoin said:
It's supposed to be based on doing what is right. Clearly in other areas, it's not based on what is right. There's a morality gap.JohnInCarolina said:
Are the arguments being made to Russia here based on moral superiority? I don't think I've seen that from Blinken, but perhaps I've missed something.Eoin said:
The justifications for and effectiveness of US overseas interventions are seen very differently outside of the US. Moral superiority in specific theatres is also a tough position to maintain when supporting objectively unpleasant regimes in others. Is Putin worse than MBS in Saudi?Kayak said:The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:
Blinken "We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend, including Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances". Sounds like taking the moral high ground.
A moral argument would be one that said Ukraine should be defended because it is a democracy and that needs to be preserved against the threat of an evil dictatorship. Something like that. And maybe Blinken did make those kinds of arguments, I just haven’t seen them."I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike -
Because this policy is making a judgement about which side is 'right' and which side is 'wrong' and chosing to support the 'right' side. The point is that US overseas interventions are often seen outside the US as being based on the interests of the US, often leading to the US supporting regimes which work in ways that are opposite to the founding principles of the US itself. This isn't anti-US, the UK and other major powers are all well versed in crapping on the little guy when it suits their agenda.JohnInCarolina said:
To me that just reads like a basic statement of foreign policy. There isn’t anything in there that would be hypocritical with the US support of Saudi Arabia, for example, to your earlier point.Eoin said:JohnInCarolina said:
Yes, I understand the principle you’re relaying. My point is that I don’t think the current arguments being made by the US regarding Russia and Ukraine are based on the notion that the US occupies some moral high ground.Eoin said:
It's supposed to be based on doing what is right. Clearly in other areas, it's not based on what is right. There's a morality gap.JohnInCarolina said:
Are the arguments being made to Russia here based on moral superiority? I don't think I've seen that from Blinken, but perhaps I've missed something.Eoin said:
The justifications for and effectiveness of US overseas interventions are seen very differently outside of the US. Moral superiority in specific theatres is also a tough position to maintain when supporting objectively unpleasant regimes in others. Is Putin worse than MBS in Saudi?Kayak said:The world might be better off without large governments, but we seem to be stuck with them forever. That said, the willingness of so many to imagine their govt shares their values is frustrating. How many Americans believe in democracy, fairness, human rights, and peace, yet can ignore or rationalize the exact opposite behavior by their government? The number of innocent people we are starving or withholding medicine from, in order to change their government, is enormous. Not to mention those our proxies are actively bombing with our support. Our recent history of ‘success’ in foreign interventions, as well as how easily we were duped on Iraq, should give us some pause in pushing for the next war. Keep in mind this one is with a nuclear armed adversary. There is good reason there is little pushback in our press, and it’s not because they’re so independent and see what they should. These are the same folks who supported the Iraq war and suffered no ill effects to their careers. If you are hoping that voting for the other party will save us, the differences can be summed up in a picture:
Blinken "We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend, including Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances". Sounds like taking the moral high ground.
A moral argument would be one that said Ukraine should be defended because it is a democracy and that needs to be preserved against the threat of an evil dictatorship. Something like that. And maybe Blinken did make those kinds of arguments, I just haven’t seen them. -
@Eoin I think we are arguing two fairly different points. Frankly I do not expect countries to do anything other than to act in ways that are consistent with their own national interests. On occasion their public defense of those actions that are based on other things as a means to justify them will make them appear hypocritical. No argument there. I’m just not seeing such a defense at play here."I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike
-
The implication is that the US is acting to help the good guys.
-
We are going in circles. Maybe this is just my opinion, but I don't think that referencing a country's right to "sovereignty and territorial integrity, and... to choose their own security arrangements and alliances" constitutes a "good guy" argument. That would apply to any number of countries, including Russia.Eoin said:The implication is that the US is acting to help the good guys.
"I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike -
JohnInCarolina said:
We are going in circles. Maybe this is just my opinion, but I don't think that referencing a country's right to "sovereignty and territorial integrity, and... to choose their own security arrangements and alliances" constitutes a "good guy" argument. That would apply to any number of countries, including Russia.Eoin said:The implication is that the US is acting to help the good guys.
We are. But the US support for a country's sovereignty etc. isn't universal, it depends on who they are.
-
John,
I suppose some of us are thinking of the decades of actual demonization of Putin and Russia, by our government and our national news organizations. Many of these references included character/moral judgements of Putin and his country. For example, a certain official, while high up in the Obama administration, claimed he looked in Putin's eyes and called him a "soulless killer" to his face. That person is currently a high official in this administration. Even though there aren't blatant references to the evilness of their empire currently, every explanation of their motives is dismissed as propaganda, and those making it as propagandists. This doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room to explain their reasons as anything but unsavory. Many people also see the US performing the same actions, and our press never reporting them as inappropriate or questioning our motives. Only during the previous administration did we get a somewhat non-compliant press, when we need it all the time.Bob
New Cumberland, PA
XL with the usual accessories -
No argument there, but that is a different matter from saying that the current defense is based primarily upon who is good and who is bad. What you're talking about now concerns how consistently the US has made similar arguments in the past. I'm happy to have that discussion, but it is an entirely different one from the one we have been having.Eoin said:JohnInCarolina said:
We are going in circles. Maybe this is just my opinion, but I don't think that referencing a country's right to "sovereignty and territorial integrity, and... to choose their own security arrangements and alliances" constitutes a "good guy" argument. That would apply to any number of countries, including Russia.Eoin said:The implication is that the US is acting to help the good guys.
We are. But the US support for a country's sovereignty etc. isn't universal, it depends on who they are."I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike -
Depending on who they are is portrayed as a good vs bad decision, so a moral judgement.JohnInCarolina said:
No argument there, but that is a different matter from saying that the current defense is based primarily upon who is good and who is bad. What you're talking about now concerns how consistently the US has made similar arguments in the past. I'm happy to have that discussion, but it is an entirely different one from the one we have been having.Eoin said:JohnInCarolina said:
We are going in circles. Maybe this is just my opinion, but I don't think that referencing a country's right to "sovereignty and territorial integrity, and... to choose their own security arrangements and alliances" constitutes a "good guy" argument. That would apply to any number of countries, including Russia.Eoin said:The implication is that the US is acting to help the good guys.
We are. But the US support for a country's sovereignty etc. isn't universal, it depends on who they are. -
Never mind. Thought better of it."I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike
-
Chuckle.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ― Philip K. Diçk -
Yesterday morning Fareed Zakaria had a panel discussion with three folks: a rep from the Kremlin, a rep from Ukraine, and a rep from Germany (who are highly dependent on energy sources from Russia). One of them (I can't remember which one) mentioned that along with troops, weapons and supplies, Russia had now shipped "many" units of blood to the border with Ukraine. I don't know much about Russia's war games, but this didn't give me a good feeling.
They also discussed public opinion in Ukraine about russia. It was fairly ambivalent before 2014, but since the annexation of Crimea and "occupation" of east Ukraine, they've become much more anti-Russian, and a lot of non-military folks (lawyers, engineers, schoolteachers) are training and prepping for an invasion._____________Tin soldiers and Johnson's coming...
-
@Botch Where did you see Fareed Zakaria as I have always enjoyed his writings but have lost track?
BTW- read about the blood supplies and combat medic units were also on the move.Louisville; Rolling smoke in the neighbourhood. # 38 for the win. Life is too short for light/lite beer! Seems I'm livin in a transitional period. -
He's on CNN on Sunday mornings (GPS), and I believe their website. He's the only guy I watch on CNN anymore, who have otherwise gone to "gotcha" news (I may be starting a related thread here).lousubcap said:@Botch Where did you see Fareed Zakaria as I have always enjoyed his writings but have lost track?
BTW- read about the blood supplies and combat medic units were also on the move.
Haven't heard about the medic units, even more concerning..._____________Tin soldiers and Johnson's coming...
-
But the highlight of the day was Judge Jeanine’s show on the “scumbag” Hunter, and the coverup of all the $$$$$ that Joe & Hunter are making. The FBI has all the dirt, but I doubt it will be released in the next 3 years. Joe & Hunter are both POS’s. The apple didn’t fall from the tree.
-
littlerascal56 said:But the highlight of the day was Judge Jeanine’s show on the “scumbag” Hunter, and the coverup of all the $$$$$ that Joe & Hunter are making. The FBI has all the dirt, but I doubt it will be released in the next 3 years. Joe & Hunter are both POS’s. The apple didn’t fall from the tree.
"I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike -
Philly - Kansas City - Houston - Cincinnati - Dallas - Houston - Memphis - Austin - Chicago - Austin
Large BGE. OONI 16, TOTO Washlet S550e (Now with enhanced Motherly Hugs!)
"If I wanted my balls washed, I'd go to the golf course!"
Dennis - Austin,TX -
littlerascal56 said:But the highlight of the day was Judge Jeanine’s show on the “scumbag” Hunter, and the coverup of all the $$$$$ that Joe & Hunter are making. The FBI has all the dirt, but I doubt it will be released in the next 3 years. Joe & Hunter are both POS’s. The apple didn’t fall from the tree.
Somehow I'm not at all surprised that you watch Judge Jeanine.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ― Philip K. Diçk -
Molly Jong-Fast refers to her as "Judge BoxOfWhine" lol.HeavyG said:littlerascal56 said:But the highlight of the day was Judge Jeanine’s show on the “scumbag” Hunter, and the coverup of all the $$$$$ that Joe & Hunter are making. The FBI has all the dirt, but I doubt it will be released in the next 3 years. Joe & Hunter are both POS’s. The apple didn’t fall from the tree.
Somehow I'm not at all surprised that you watch Judge Jeanine."I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike -
"I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike
-
Awesome story here:
Nobody fvcks with Irish fishermen!"I've made a note never to piss you two off." - Stike -
What's a person to make of such reporting?
U.S. Says Russia Planned to Fabricate Pretext for Invasion (msn.com)
AP reporter confronts Biden spokesperson over Russia allegations - Axios
Bob
New Cumberland, PA
XL with the usual accessories -
______________________________________________I love lamp..
Categories
- All Categories
- 182.7K EggHead Forum
- 15.7K Forum List
- 459 EGGtoberfest
- 1.9K Forum Feedback
- 10.3K Off Topic
- 2.2K EGG Table Forum
- 1 Rules & Disclaimer
- 9K Cookbook
- 12 Valentines Day
- 91 Holiday Recipes
- 223 Appetizers
- 516 Baking
- 2.4K Beef
- 88 Desserts
- 163 Lamb
- 2.4K Pork
- 1.5K Poultry
- 30 Salads and Dressings
- 320 Sauces, Rubs, Marinades
- 543 Seafood
- 175 Sides
- 121 Soups, Stews, Chilis
- 35 Vegetarian
- 100 Vegetables
- 313 Health
- 293 Weight Loss Forum