What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

In the article above:

Ukraine is not a 3rd world country that needs American training all of a sudden.  They need weapons at this point.  Like I said above they've proven themselves capable.  

Senior military experts wanted training for Ukraine in guerilla warfare tactics.  They evidently saw a need for this as Russia was building up it's forces at the border.

The Biden administration went against the advice of the experts in this area, for the reasons you stated.

And, now the WH is denying they ever were advised of the request.

Am I following you,  or am I missing something?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
13 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Senior military experts wanted training for Ukraine in guerilla warfare tactics.  They evidently saw a need for this as Russia was building up it's forces at the border.

The Biden administration went against the advice of the experts in this area, for the reasons you stated.

And, now the WH is denying they ever were advised of the request.

Am I following you,  or am I missing something?

Every involved party is saying that the proposal was not brought to the White House. Are you trying to imply something here? 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Dialysis.
5 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Don't encourage me...politics and capitalist agendas have ruined our health system.  

Considering that it's 100% the truth, I'll encourage it all day 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
52 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Every involved party is saying that the proposal was not brought to the White House. Are you trying to imply something here? 

Yeah, you've spouted off that false interpretation a couple of times now.   I'm not implying anything.  Just clarifying what Tweety is saying.  Other then your usual attempt to get attention, not sure why you interjected.

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
3 hours ago, Beerman said:

Senior military experts wanted training for Ukraine in guerilla warfare tactics.  They evidently saw a need for this as Russia was building up it's forces at the border.

The Biden administration went against the advice of the experts in this area, for the reasons you stated.

And, now the WH is denying they ever were advised of the request.

Am I following you,  or am I missing something?

The original article didn't really back up the idea that this was officially presented to White House, although Fox's reporting of the Politico story (using the term "reporting" loosely considered they just wrote a story about a story) did a good job of leaving out much of that context.

Either way though it's fair to judge Biden and his administration in terms of how they process recommendations from their military advisors, which I think we could all agree isn't just to do whatever they suggest.  

It would be one thing if he had tried to withhold military aid which has no legal authority to withhold in exchange for personal political gain.  That would be bad.

Declining to endorse the idea of training Ukraine on "unconventional warfare" methods given the circumstances in play is something that I don't think is as clear.  

First, this is Ukraine, and like other breakaway republics a favorite Molotov Cocktail recipe is something that gets shared in the same way we might share Meatloaf recipes.  There's at least one major Ukranian brewery that has switched to bottling Molotov Cocktails instead of Beer.  It's pretty adorable that the US military thinks it can teach these folks anything related to "unconventional warfare".

The other issue is that we're already having to deal with the fact that Putin has been emboldened by a significant portion of American that given the choice in a head-to-head competition for support between Biden and Putin appear to pick Putin.  Any acts that can be portrayed to give sympathy to Putin work against our efforts to help protect Ukraine, and given the broad spectrum of things that could be called "guerilla" or "unconventional" I can see wanting steer clear of that sort thing, particularly when it seems ridiculous.  

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
2 hours ago, Beerman said:

Yeah, you've spouted off that false interpretation a couple of times now.   I'm not implying anything.  Just clarifying what Tweety is saying.  Other then your usual attempt to get attention, not sure why you interjected.

 

None of the sources say that the proposal was briefed to members of white house staff.  So, what's false about that? Are you participating in a discussion, or...?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg, Trauma, Ortho, Neuro, Cardiac.
11 hours ago, Beerman said:

Senior military experts wanted training for Ukraine in guerilla warfare tactics.  They evidently saw a need for this as Russia was building up it's forces at the border.

The Biden administration went against the advice of the experts in this area, for the reasons you stated.

And, now the WH is denying they ever were advised of the request.

Am I following you,  or am I missing something?

No you're not missing anything except I didn't comment on the WH denying they were ever advised of the request.   While I'm not a senior military expert by no means I can see why the administration went against this advice and that it was proven not to be necessary.

But if they got the request and then said they didn't, then that's a problem.  The White House has not proven to me they are corrupt and dishonest so forgive me for taking it at face value that they didn't get the request directly. But obviously it was "the Biden Administration".

It's not the first time the WH or their administration, or even congress, went against senior military advice is it?  I will agree it is newsworthy as when Obama clashed with them over Syria. In the Iraqi War Bush's relationship with senior military officials was strained.  They don't always get their way.  In a way this is how America was designed, so as not to be a military dictatorship. Trump withheld congressionally held military aid to Ukraine (which later was released I believe).   For better or worse America's military is civilian lead.

History will tell if this was a poor decision.  Ultimately while some want to make it an issue on the leadership in the Biden Administration, on a 1 to 10 scale of controversy it seems to be about a 1 to me.

In the meantime there is growing pressure on Biden to be more hawkish in our support and role.  In the here and now.  

Quote
Quote

The public calls from both Republicans and Democrats to answer Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s urgent pleas for air assistance come as the Biden administration declined an offer from Poland to deliver MiG-29 airplanes to Ukraine for fear such a move could be interpreted by the Russians as an escalation of the United States’ role in the war.

The bipartisan push underscores the growing hawkishness among many leaders on Capitol Hill, who have been urging Biden to do more to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian attacks as the war rages into its third week.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/13/gop-russia-weapons/

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
6 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

None of the sources say that the proposal was briefed to members of white house staff.  So, what's false about that? Are you participating in a discussion, or...?

No, I wasn't engaging with you.  I asked Tweety a question, and you interjected.

That being said, you claimed "every involved party" said it was never discussed with WH.  Actually,  the WH is the only one who says it was never brought to them.  And, we know the WH, actually Biden himself, has a recent history of making a similar lie.

Tweety and Cliff Claven seem to be defending the WH for not following the recommendation of the military.   That would suggest they also understand that the recommendation was discussed with the WH.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
17 minutes ago, Tweety said:

The White House has not proven to me they are corrupt and dishonest so forgive me for taking it at face value that they didn't get the request directly. But obviously it was "the Biden Administration".

Seriously?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/28/politics/afghanistan-biden-testimony-contradiction-fact-check/index.html

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg, Trauma, Ortho, Neuro, Cardiac.
19 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Seriously?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/28/politics/afghanistan-biden-testimony-contradiction-fact-check/index.html

Fair enough. 

But yes, my first instinct while being maintaining skepticism is to take things from the WH at face value.  I pretty much have felt that way about all administrations except for Trump because he made things up.  

Do I think the presidents bat 1000 in the integrity and honesty department?  Absolutely not.  Nixon ruined that idea when I was a teen.  My presumption while taking them at face value is there is a lot of behind the scenes things going on in our government that is shady.  

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg, Trauma, Ortho, Neuro, Cardiac.
20 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Tweety and Cliff Claven seem to be defending the WH for not following the recommendation of the military.   That would suggest they also understand that the recommendation was discussed with the WH.

When I made the post for which you were asking that's how I answered, that it was discussed with the WH and it went over my head that it wasn't.  I missed the very last sentence.  "No such plans were ever presented to the White House or the NSC. We have no idea what this is referring to," a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital."  

Regardless it was discussed with the Biden Administration and rejected.

I also said I understand why the decision was made.  I "defended" it based on their performance of the Ukraine military on the ground in the here and now.

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
24 minutes ago, Beerman said:

No, I wasn't engaging with you.  I asked Tweety a question, and you interjected.

That being said, you claimed "every involved party" said it was never discussed with WH.  Actually,  the WH is the only one who says it was never brought to them.  And, we know the WH, actually Biden himself, has a recent history of making a similar lie.

Tweety and Cliff Claven seem to be defending the WH for not following the recommendation of the military.   That would suggest they also understand that the recommendation was discussed with the WH.

You are making claims that aren't supported by the evidence available.  No party involved has claimed that they briefed a member of white house staff in the proposal.  

The military withdrew their proposal without presenting it to the white house because they realized it likely was not going to be implemented because of concern that it editors escalate tensions.  It really smacks like you are trying to make it seem that the military wanted something and the white house shut them down and then lied about it.  While you are welcome to believe that, when you publish that belief in a thread such as this, it gets challenged because the available evidence doesn't support that notion.  

Yeah. We interject our thoughts into these discussions.  If you want to have a private chat with Tweety you can go to private messages.

Clearly you've developed a real sensitivity to the concept of a politician not speaking truth with every word, sort of...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment