5 ms·

Why not? George Soros is socially left-leaning (not to be conflated with fiscally left-leaning) and funds left-leaning anti-war organizations. The Koch brother

by 0xDEF 3y ago

Why not? George Soros is socially left-leaning (not to be conflated with fiscally left-leaning) and funds left-leaning anti-war organizations. The Koch brothers have been funding right-libertarian organizations for decades, including libertarian anti-war organizations. Responsible Statecraft is an anti-war organization that is predominantly right-libertarian however they work together with left-leaning anti-war organizations. It's worth pointing out that right-libertarians were the OG anti-war movement in the US and even opposed US support and involvement in the European front during WW2. Responsible Statecraft are the ideological descendants of those people.

EA-3167 3y ago
> It's worth pointing out that right-libertarians were the OG anti-war movement in the US and even opposed US support and involvement in the European front during WW2. Responsible Statecraft are the ideological descendants of those people. Yikes, that's a nasty genealogy for any group. "Hey we're the people who thought it was fine if Hitler and Stalin divided Europe, and Japan conquered Asia."
- aubanel 3y ago
  I think the other side of the spectrum, "let's remove from power anyone who does not share our values / does not uphold our interests", also leads to nasty things, like the long list of US-backed coups in Latin America [0]. (I'm not saying that isolationism is the right solution, just that interventionism can go bad) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
  - bannedbybros 3y ago
    [dead]
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    Ironically the same right-libertarians have always been huge fans of intervention in "the US sphere". Their desire to let the rest of the world rot notwithstanding.
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  I'll make one thing clear: yes. Yikes indeed. But, having said that, it is very important to note that among Normal Folk in the conservative camp, it's become much more acceptable to say that we befriended the wrong monster in the conflict. I can't emphasize how much I disagree with this on both practical and moral levels, but I do work in a place and an industry that's extremely conservative, and - weirdly - WW2 (and guns!) are one of the few areas of safe conversation for me. I didn't realize how much things had shifted, so I had to poker face hard when this came up. <serious_historian_face.gif> To the larger OP - oh yeah. Ha. So much stuff that the <military> sent back (because it didn't work, duh) gets to be sent back over the water again at top dollar. And no one will ever know! Because Ukraine classifies <these_things> as artillery (which is smart!) and not <other_things>, so whatever they end up using them for (spares, etc) will be invisible to the powers that be. Unlike when everything came back from Afghanistan, and Important People noticed that "the product" never worked (or "existed"), and - from the get-go - was a box of non-matching parts sourced from "Procurement Director's Immediate Family Enterprises". Ukrainians won't complain about that - they need parts!
bannedbybros 3y ago
[dead]
notahacker 3y ago
Whilst what you say is true (left and libertarian capitalists often have overlapping isolationist ideas on conflicts), Soros' position is distinct from that because whilst he may be socially somewhat left leaning and unimpressed with US Middle Eastern adventures, he favours the protection and spread of Western liberalism (and is above all else anti Russian nationalism expressed across international borders). So not only is he not necessarily aligned with the reflexively anti-war elements and definitely not an isolationist, but he's openly and ardently in favour of Western support for Ukraine in this conflict. Of course, this is also exhibit A for "prominent commentators' views are often only incidentally aligned with their funders' interests and sometimes at loggerheads with them..."

by 0xDEF 3y ago

EA-3167 3y ago

> It's worth pointing out that right-libertarians were the OG anti-war movement in the US and even opposed US support and involvement in the European front during WW2. Responsible Statecraft are the ideological descendants of those people. Yikes, that's a nasty genealogy for any group. "Hey we're the people who thought it was fine if Hitler and Stalin divided Europe, and Japan conquered Asia."

aubanel 3y ago
I think the other side of the spectrum, "let's remove from power anyone who does not share our values / does not uphold our interests", also leads to nasty things, like the long list of US-backed coups in Latin America [0]. (I'm not saying that isolationism is the right solution, just that interventionism can go bad) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
- bannedbybros 3y ago
  [dead]
- EA-3167 3y ago
  Ironically the same right-libertarians have always been huge fans of intervention in "the US sphere". Their desire to let the rest of the world rot notwithstanding.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
I'll make one thing clear: yes. Yikes indeed. But, having said that, it is very important to note that among Normal Folk in the conservative camp, it's become much more acceptable to say that we befriended the wrong monster in the conflict. I can't emphasize how much I disagree with this on both practical and moral levels, but I do work in a place and an industry that's extremely conservative, and - weirdly - WW2 (and guns!) are one of the few areas of safe conversation for me. I didn't realize how much things had shifted, so I had to poker face hard when this came up. <serious_historian_face.gif> To the larger OP - oh yeah. Ha. So much stuff that the <military> sent back (because it didn't work, duh) gets to be sent back over the water again at top dollar. And no one will ever know! Because Ukraine classifies <these_things> as artillery (which is smart!) and not <other_things>, so whatever they end up using them for (spares, etc) will be invisible to the powers that be. Unlike when everything came back from Afghanistan, and Important People noticed that "the product" never worked (or "existed"), and - from the get-go - was a box of non-matching parts sourced from "Procurement Director's Immediate Family Enterprises". Ukrainians won't complain about that - they need parts!

bannedbybros 3y ago

[dead]

notahacker 3y ago

Whilst what you say is true (left and libertarian capitalists often have overlapping isolationist ideas on conflicts), Soros' position is distinct from that because whilst he may be socially somewhat left leaning and unimpressed with US Middle Eastern adventures, he favours the protection and spread of Western liberalism (and is above all else anti Russian nationalism expressed across international borders). So not only is he not necessarily aligned with the reflexively anti-war elements and definitely not an isolationist, but he's openly and ardently in favour of Western support for Ukraine in this conflict. Of course, this is also exhibit A for "prominent commentators' views are often only incidentally aligned with their funders' interests and sometimes at loggerheads with them..."