“We have a lot at stake. This region matters. It has a lot to do with national security. We need to step up our game,” Gen. Richardson said referring to Latin America.
She talks about both groups of countries in the video, but she never says that the Russia aligned countries have been approached. Just the six others that have bought arms from Russia.
She very clearly says they are workshopping ideas for getting old Soviet weapons from all nine countries. She specifically says, “I’ve got total of nine that have Russian equipment”, and then “we’re working to replace that Russian equipment with United States equipment if these countries want to donate it to Ukraine”. She literally contradicts what you’re claiming. Just admit that your country is run imbeciles.
I talked to my, um, number two adversary in the region, Russia, I mean I’ve got of course a lot of the countries Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua with Russia relationships but what I really look… and six other countries by the way so a total of nine that have Russian equipment in them and we’re working to replace that Russian equipment with United States equipment if those countries want to donate it to Ukraine or the cause that’s happening and be able to replace that with U.S. equipment.
Obviously, this quote is a mess since it wasn’t from prepared remarks. People don’t form nice, neat sentences off the top of their heads.
So what she is saying is:
Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are aligned with Russia
There are a total of nine countries with Russian equipment
There are six other countries with Russian equipment
The US is offering to replace that equipment with US equipment if the replaced equipment gets donated to Ukraine
When used as a pronoun with a large scope like a 36 second clip, “that” can quickly become ambiguous. It is then left as an exercise to the reader/listener what “that” refers to using context clues. Sometimes that leads to genuine ambiguity or confusion. Other times that leaves an opening for a bad faith interpretation.
Here there are two options for “that”. Either she is talking about “six other countries [with Russian equipment]” or “a total of nine that have Russian equipment” (including hostile countries). So tell me, which of those two options makes more sense? The quote itself leaves it ambiguous, but surely someone as skilled in geopolitics as yourself would be able to pick the correct answer.
Once again, she identifies 9 countries, including 3 countries that US has a highly antagonistic relationship with as potential suppliers of weapons. There would be no reason to even mention Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba if she did not believe there was a chance to get weapons from them. One has to do a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise.
Yup. I had to look it up, but no shame in a little research. Laura Richardson, commander of SOUTHCOM. She lives and breathes Latin American countries. Why would she not talk about both Russia aligned countries and other countries? Who’s to say this wasn’t an aside in broader conversation?
She talks about both groups of countries in the video, but she never says that the Russia aligned countries have been approached. Just the six others that have bought arms from Russia.
She very clearly says they are workshopping ideas for getting old Soviet weapons from all nine countries. She specifically says, “I’ve got total of nine that have Russian equipment”, and then “we’re working to replace that Russian equipment with United States equipment if these countries want to donate it to Ukraine”. She literally contradicts what you’re claiming. Just admit that your country is run imbeciles.
This is your brain on liberalism
Yup. I’m capable of figuring out what ambiguous sentences mean when only one interpretation makes sense.
That’s an interesting euphemism for saying that you use sophistry to interpret clear statements in creative ways.
Okay, the verbatim remarks:
Obviously, this quote is a mess since it wasn’t from prepared remarks. People don’t form nice, neat sentences off the top of their heads.
So what she is saying is:
When used as a pronoun with a large scope like a 36 second clip, “that” can quickly become ambiguous. It is then left as an exercise to the reader/listener what “that” refers to using context clues. Sometimes that leads to genuine ambiguity or confusion. Other times that leaves an opening for a bad faith interpretation.
Here there are two options for “that”. Either she is talking about “six other countries [with Russian equipment]” or “a total of nine that have Russian equipment” (including hostile countries). So tell me, which of those two options makes more sense? The quote itself leaves it ambiguous, but surely someone as skilled in geopolitics as yourself would be able to pick the correct answer.
Once again, she identifies 9 countries, including 3 countries that US has a highly antagonistic relationship with as potential suppliers of weapons. There would be no reason to even mention Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba if she did not believe there was a chance to get weapons from them. One has to do a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise.
Do you know who she is and why someone in her position might mention those countries?
Of course, do you?
Yup. I had to look it up, but no shame in a little research. Laura Richardson, commander of SOUTHCOM. She lives and breathes Latin American countries. Why would she not talk about both Russia aligned countries and other countries? Who’s to say this wasn’t an aside in broader conversation?