“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.
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?
Why would she mention countries that US has been fucking over for many decades trying to overthrow their government and whose people US sanctions starve in the context of supplying their weapons to Ukraine?
You are making a baseless claim that is not supported by the context of what she said or anything she actually said. You’re trying to create some sort of ambiguity where none exists.
You are absolutely incapable of admitting being wrong. Every single discussion I’ve had with you goes the same. You float opinions on the topic you have no clue regarding, then when you’re presented with evidence contradicting your claims you just keep doubling down.
There is no shame in not knowing who Laura Richardson is, there is shame in writing comments on the subject you’re not familiar with and then wasting other people’s time arguing about the subject they know vastly more than you about.
Why would she mention countries that US has been fucking over for many decades trying to overthrow their government and whose people US sanctions starve in the context of supplying their weapons to Ukraine?
Because one of the foreign policy goals of the US in South America is to reduce Russia’s and China’s foothold there. That’s been the case for decades, and has roots in the days of the Monroe Doctrine.
there is shame in writing comments on the subject you’re not familiar with
Thing is, I’m familiar with the US’s relations with the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. They are, to put it mildly, poor. Meanwhile, their relationship with Russia is quite cozy. This is hardly a secret. That makes your claim utterly inane. It of course totally makes sense when I learned that the only source for the claim is off the cuff remarks from an official. Russia, Russian state media, and Venezuelan state media then ran with this narrative, despite it being bonkers. So hey, maybe don’t claim to know vastly more than me when you’re falling for stupid claims that are themselves based on a single statement.
If you want to keep arguing, feel free. But before you accuse me of being unwilling to admit to being incorrect, take a look at yourself. You keep defending a claim that the US would take actions that are nonsensical, and you’re relying on scant evidence. Are you actually clinging to a falsehood?
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?
Why would she mention countries that US has been fucking over for many decades trying to overthrow their government and whose people US sanctions starve in the context of supplying their weapons to Ukraine?
You are making a baseless claim that is not supported by the context of what she said or anything she actually said. You’re trying to create some sort of ambiguity where none exists.
You are absolutely incapable of admitting being wrong. Every single discussion I’ve had with you goes the same. You float opinions on the topic you have no clue regarding, then when you’re presented with evidence contradicting your claims you just keep doubling down.
There is no shame in not knowing who Laura Richardson is, there is shame in writing comments on the subject you’re not familiar with and then wasting other people’s time arguing about the subject they know vastly more than you about.
Because one of the foreign policy goals of the US in South America is to reduce Russia’s and China’s foothold there. That’s been the case for decades, and has roots in the days of the Monroe Doctrine.
Thing is, I’m familiar with the US’s relations with the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. They are, to put it mildly, poor. Meanwhile, their relationship with Russia is quite cozy. This is hardly a secret. That makes your claim utterly inane. It of course totally makes sense when I learned that the only source for the claim is off the cuff remarks from an official. Russia, Russian state media, and Venezuelan state media then ran with this narrative, despite it being bonkers. So hey, maybe don’t claim to know vastly more than me when you’re falling for stupid claims that are themselves based on a single statement.
If you want to keep arguing, feel free. But before you accuse me of being unwilling to admit to being incorrect, take a look at yourself. You keep defending a claim that the US would take actions that are nonsensical, and you’re relying on scant evidence. Are you actually clinging to a falsehood?