The Biden administration is asking Congress to provide more than $13 billion in emergency defense aid to Ukraine and an additional $8 billion for humanitarian support through the end of the year.
How about this. Lets meet in the middle. You come up with a source that is in contrary and ill come up with a source thats in favor and we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you just want a source that you can easily disqualify.
That’s not how that works. You made a claim that you can’t backup. Meeting in the middle would be if you provided a source and we could discuss the validity. If your alleged source is so weak that it can be “easily disqualified” then you don’t really have a source then, do you? So maybe you didn’t pull it out if your own ass, but instead you saw someone else pull it out if their ass and you regurgitating their shit.
What if I concede to not having made any research prior to my claims… much like you not making any research before trying to disprove. We would be even steven and we can start from the bottom. Otherwise, you are losing a golden opportunity to educate me correctly.
No concession. You made shit up. The onus is on you to provide proof, not me to disprove. The only education for you is to not just spread bullshit next time. If you make a claim, support it with evidence.
I dont see that you have evidence for the contrary though. Why would i need evidence on a claim that is so well understood? I need you to prove me wrong.
Either you’re arguing in bad faith or you’re too dense to understand how this works. You make a claim and can’t support it. That means your claim has no merit. It means nothing without supporting evidence. Nobody has to disprove it because it carries no value. You say it’s well understood, but can’t back it up. That’s it. Baseless claims are equivalent to falacy that don’t need disproven.
Buddy im past that. Im asking you now to help me understand. If you cant help me underatand then you can say that. Ill concede and say i made a baseless claim. It is a claim I have heard but i dont remember where i saw. But i want help understanding how it works. The only information i see look like this.
This doesnt specify how it was spent. I am assuming loans are taken out from banks and they need funds to pay back the interest on the loans. I dont see information on that specifically though.
Looking at that source, the US has committed just over 70bn €, 42.8 to military, 34.3 to financial, and 3.6 to humanitarian aide. I can’t find what each of those topics entail specifically. The estimated total commitment from everyone is about €165bn. So while your initial statement wasn’t true, the spirit was accurate, in that most money is going to military rather than humanitarian, but hundreds of billions has not gone to Ukraine. However, you did initially claim that all this money is going to banks, which also isn’t true. From the US, we have sent billions in equipment, from munitions, to vehicles, to weapons. Admittedly, idk what the expected return is from Ukraine in the end, whether it’s loans or something else. What I do know is the equipment we’ve sent isn’t the top shelf stuff, but rather long term storage and dated equipment. On the domestic side, manufacturing has increased significantly to replace that old stock with new, better stock. War sucks, and ideally people could just not kill each other and stuff, but since they are we can help by arming an ally that’s fighting an enemy all while boosting the domestic economy and creating jobs. It’s dirty, but it’s a win/win for the US.
My counter from the start, is that you should have provided this source. We can have a conversation and debate over facts, but not over conjecture. You don’t have to care about Ukraine, but this isn’t black and white on all points.
How about this. Lets meet in the middle. You come up with a source that is in contrary and ill come up with a source thats in favor and we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you just want a source that you can easily disqualify.
That’s not how that works. You made a claim that you can’t backup. Meeting in the middle would be if you provided a source and we could discuss the validity. If your alleged source is so weak that it can be “easily disqualified” then you don’t really have a source then, do you? So maybe you didn’t pull it out if your own ass, but instead you saw someone else pull it out if their ass and you regurgitating their shit.
What if I concede to not having made any research prior to my claims… much like you not making any research before trying to disprove. We would be even steven and we can start from the bottom. Otherwise, you are losing a golden opportunity to educate me correctly.
No concession. You made shit up. The onus is on you to provide proof, not me to disprove. The only education for you is to not just spread bullshit next time. If you make a claim, support it with evidence.
I dont see that you have evidence for the contrary though. Why would i need evidence on a claim that is so well understood? I need you to prove me wrong.
This is what you are doing.
Either you’re arguing in bad faith or you’re too dense to understand how this works. You make a claim and can’t support it. That means your claim has no merit. It means nothing without supporting evidence. Nobody has to disprove it because it carries no value. You say it’s well understood, but can’t back it up. That’s it. Baseless claims are equivalent to falacy that don’t need disproven.
Buddy im past that. Im asking you now to help me understand. If you cant help me underatand then you can say that. Ill concede and say i made a baseless claim. It is a claim I have heard but i dont remember where i saw. But i want help understanding how it works. The only information i see look like this.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
This doesnt specify how it was spent. I am assuming loans are taken out from banks and they need funds to pay back the interest on the loans. I dont see information on that specifically though.
Looking at that source, the US has committed just over 70bn €, 42.8 to military, 34.3 to financial, and 3.6 to humanitarian aide. I can’t find what each of those topics entail specifically. The estimated total commitment from everyone is about €165bn. So while your initial statement wasn’t true, the spirit was accurate, in that most money is going to military rather than humanitarian, but hundreds of billions has not gone to Ukraine. However, you did initially claim that all this money is going to banks, which also isn’t true. From the US, we have sent billions in equipment, from munitions, to vehicles, to weapons. Admittedly, idk what the expected return is from Ukraine in the end, whether it’s loans or something else. What I do know is the equipment we’ve sent isn’t the top shelf stuff, but rather long term storage and dated equipment. On the domestic side, manufacturing has increased significantly to replace that old stock with new, better stock. War sucks, and ideally people could just not kill each other and stuff, but since they are we can help by arming an ally that’s fighting an enemy all while boosting the domestic economy and creating jobs. It’s dirty, but it’s a win/win for the US.
My counter from the start, is that you should have provided this source. We can have a conversation and debate over facts, but not over conjecture. You don’t have to care about Ukraine, but this isn’t black and white on all points.
I hope this helped clarify some things.