You’re right, they should just roll over and accept Russian domination.
Their comment, of course, was overly simplistic. I’m sure what they meant was “then why are they protesting action that will end the war in Ukraine’s favor faster”.
If you only care about blindly ending war as soon as possible by any means necessary, you definitely have two major options. Either let the aggressor do whatever they want, or use overwhelming force to utterly destroy them.
If you only care about blindly ending war as soon as possible by any means necessary, you definitely have two major options. Either let the aggressor do whatever they want, or use overwhelming force to utterly destroy them.
Except this is assuming that the US is omnipotent. The US cannot use overwhelming force to defeat Russia in the conflict. That leaves only not supplying arms to reduce the length of the war and casualties.
I dont have that principle, I think there are cases when you should and when you shouldn’t [let aggressors do whatever they want]
Personally I don’t think there’s any case where we should be telling other peoples to just accept their annexation or colonization. I’d be interested to hear the argument otherwise.
I’m more concerned about the US. Why is biggest kid on the block when it comes to genocide and war so enthusiastic to supply Ukraine with arms?
Because it defends American hegemony and weakens an anti-American state. It’s not a hard question to answer. That doesn’t mean it’s not also the right thing to do regardless. Bad people can go good things for bad reasons. Unfortunately some seem to think the deaths of Ukrainians and pillaging of their land is a sacrifice worth making in order to geopolitically weaken America. I’m all for reducing America’s global power, but I’m not so cruel as to choose other people’s lives to trade for it against their will.
If Ukraine wants to defend itself, I think it’s a good thing to air them in that; I also think making such invasions as difficult and expensive as possible is the anti-war position.
Personally I don’t think there’s any case where we should be telling other peoples to just accept their annexation or colonization. I’d be interested to hear the argument otherwise.
Idk I’m pretty anti-nationalist. People’s material conditions and also not being dead matter more than imaginary lines on a map.
Because it defends American hegemony and weakens an anti-American state. It’s not a hard question to answer. That doesn’t mean it’s not also the right thing to do regardless.
I mean that really should factor into it.
Unfortunately some seem to think the deaths of Ukrainians and pillaging of their land is a sacrifice worth making in order to geopolitically weaken America. I’m all for reducing America’s global power, but I’m not so cruel as to choose other people’s lives to trade for it against their will.
Fighting to the last Ukrainian kills more Ukrainians than allowing their government to sign a peace deal, or at least allowing their government to lose more quickly.
If Ukraine wants to defend itself, I think it’s a good thing to air them in that;
What do you mean by ukraine? Do you mean the government? The ukrainian population? Part of the ukrainian population?
People’s material conditions and also not being dead matter more than imaginary lines on a map.
This is unbelievably dishonest. You think the only material change is a redrawing of borders? C’mon now.
Fighting to the last Ukrainian kills more Ukrainians than allowing their government to sign a peace deal, or at least allowing their government to lose more quickly.
Not your choice to make. If they want to defend their land against unwarranted invasion, that’s their choice. You don’t get to decide what somebody else’s life is worth.
What do you mean by ukraine? Do you mean the government? The ukrainian population? Part of the ukrainian population?
Available information indicates a strong support of the defense effort among the Ukrainian populace.
This is unbelievably dishonest. You think the only material change is a redrawing of borders? C’mon now
Theyre both right wing states.
Not your choice to make. If they want to defend their land against unwarranted invasion, that’s their choice. You don’t get to decide what somebody else’s life is worth.
Conscription, + I’m not saying they can’t, Im just saying it is going to get more people killed to further supply them.
Available information indicates a strong support of the defense effort among the Ukrainian populace.
Okay, but that can’t be taken in ethnically russian areas and doesn’t answer the question.
… Yeah? And? One is still worse than the other. For example, one of them repeatedly invades its neighbor. And it’s still bad when one nation invades another as part of a land grab.
Conscription
Conscription should be opposed in all cases, and unfortunately both sides use them in this war.
I’m not saying they can’t, Im just saying it is going to get more people killed to further supply them.
Actually, what gets people killed is invading other nations. The fact that you have accepted that as a foregone conclusion, and therefore saving lives requires the invaded people not fighting back, speaks volumes to your perspective. I don’t accept this as a foregone conclusion. Russia should simply leave, and then people will stop dying.
Okay, but that can’t be taken in ethnically russian areas
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
and doesn’t answer the question.
It did answer the question. I said Ukraine wants to defend itself; you asked what I meant by that, and I said the Ukrainian population overwhelmingly supports the defense efforts. Hence that is what I mean when I say “Ukraine wants to defend itself”.
Ah, whataboutism, the first recourse of the desperate to appear neutral.
The US military industrial complex, and the politicians who serve it, have a lot to answer for. Keeping Ukrainians from being overrun by wannabe world dominators is not one of them.
Your principle seems to be pointing fingers at the big boys while you let the small fries die in trenches, begging for help that will never come because “It’s just not right for the US to do things!”
Whataboutism isn’t a logical fallacy(and claiming it is was first used to defend British colonial violence) also if it was what I was doing wasn’t whataboutism, it was questioning the motives of the person providing aid.
Your principle seems to be pointing fingers at the big boys while you let the small fries die in trenches, begging for help that will never come because “It’s just not right for the US to do things!”
Continuing the war so more people die isn’t helping. War is a racket, it is always a racket.
You’re right, they should just roll over and accept Russian domination.
Their comment, of course, was overly simplistic. I’m sure what they meant was “then why are they protesting action that will end the war in Ukraine’s favor faster”.
If you only care about blindly ending war as soon as possible by any means necessary, you definitely have two major options. Either let the aggressor do whatever they want, or use overwhelming force to utterly destroy them.
Which is your preference?
Except this is assuming that the US is omnipotent. The US cannot use overwhelming force to defeat Russia in the conflict. That leaves only not supplying arms to reduce the length of the war and casualties.
Good thing pretty much every western country is supporting Ukraine’s defensive war effort.
Nobody expects the US to be the sole support for Ukraine.
How is that going?
So you prefer just letting aggressors do whatever they want, got it.
As anti-war as you or I may be, there’s more than enough petty dictators who are more than happy to be pro-war and fuck up the world.
I dont have that principle, I think there are cases when you should and when you shouldn’t.
I’m more concerned about the US. Why is biggest kid on the block when it comes to genocide and war so enthusiastic to supply Ukraine with arms?
Especially given operation AERODYNAMIC by the cia…
Personally I don’t think there’s any case where we should be telling other peoples to just accept their annexation or colonization. I’d be interested to hear the argument otherwise.
Because it defends American hegemony and weakens an anti-American state. It’s not a hard question to answer. That doesn’t mean it’s not also the right thing to do regardless. Bad people can go good things for bad reasons. Unfortunately some seem to think the deaths of Ukrainians and pillaging of their land is a sacrifice worth making in order to geopolitically weaken America. I’m all for reducing America’s global power, but I’m not so cruel as to choose other people’s lives to trade for it against their will.
If Ukraine wants to defend itself, I think it’s a good thing to air them in that; I also think making such invasions as difficult and expensive as possible is the anti-war position.
Idk I’m pretty anti-nationalist. People’s material conditions and also not being dead matter more than imaginary lines on a map.
I mean that really should factor into it.
Fighting to the last Ukrainian kills more Ukrainians than allowing their government to sign a peace deal, or at least allowing their government to lose more quickly.
What do you mean by ukraine? Do you mean the government? The ukrainian population? Part of the ukrainian population?
This is unbelievably dishonest. You think the only material change is a redrawing of borders? C’mon now.
Not your choice to make. If they want to defend their land against unwarranted invasion, that’s their choice. You don’t get to decide what somebody else’s life is worth.
Available information indicates a strong support of the defense effort among the Ukrainian populace.
Theyre both right wing states.
Conscription, + I’m not saying they can’t, Im just saying it is going to get more people killed to further supply them.
Okay, but that can’t be taken in ethnically russian areas and doesn’t answer the question.
… Yeah? And? One is still worse than the other. For example, one of them repeatedly invades its neighbor. And it’s still bad when one nation invades another as part of a land grab.
Conscription should be opposed in all cases, and unfortunately both sides use them in this war.
Actually, what gets people killed is invading other nations. The fact that you have accepted that as a foregone conclusion, and therefore saving lives requires the invaded people not fighting back, speaks volumes to your perspective. I don’t accept this as a foregone conclusion. Russia should simply leave, and then people will stop dying.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
It did answer the question. I said Ukraine wants to defend itself; you asked what I meant by that, and I said the Ukrainian population overwhelmingly supports the defense efforts. Hence that is what I mean when I say “Ukraine wants to defend itself”.
Ah, whataboutism, the first recourse of the desperate to appear neutral.
The US military industrial complex, and the politicians who serve it, have a lot to answer for. Keeping Ukrainians from being overrun by wannabe world dominators is not one of them.
Your principle seems to be pointing fingers at the big boys while you let the small fries die in trenches, begging for help that will never come because “It’s just not right for the US to do things!”
Whataboutism isn’t a logical fallacy(and claiming it is was first used to defend British colonial violence) also if it was what I was doing wasn’t whataboutism, it was questioning the motives of the person providing aid.
Continuing the war so more people die isn’t helping. War is a racket, it is always a racket.