I’m sure you both know you’re using guilt by association and not being at all persuasive in doing so.
1 Like
Wow thanks nbz, no way I could be using the exact same specious argument to make fun of that post
So what do you think what would have happened when the US and therefore Europe doesnt act? Ukraine collapses at some time. Now we have a much bigger border between Russia and NATO countries which has to be defended. Russia would use every buildup of Nato troops as an excuse for doing more shit.
I still think no matter how you act in the end the the military complex will have to ramp up production and more money gets funnelled there. Either to support Ukraine or for defending a larger border and guarantee the sovereignity of its Baltic member states.
Right as opposed this masterful argument:
This isn’t worth responding to at all so I barely did.
It’s not guilt by association either. The people behind this war supported the wars I mentioned too. Just because they sincerely think the war is good doesn’t mean it is. They sincerely thought Iraq was good! Who gives a shit what US war planners think.
As always, it depends on the starting point. If the West had never expanded NATO past East Germany then surely the conflict would have been avoided and an intense proxy war would never have happened. If the US hadn’t armed and trained Ukrainian military units to increasing degrees under Trump and Biden, would the Russians have invaded? If the US and Europe had pressured Ukraine to give political autonomy to Donbas would that have prevented the war? And if Ukraine didn’t feel like it had the backing of a superpower would it have been more conciliatory towards Russia? Probably. I think any of those alternative histories might have prevented a war and led to Ukraine being something like Belarus. Perhaps a bit more independent.
But regardless how Ukraine might have turned out or how it will turn out, Russian threats to the rest of Europe are overblown. It’s not 1970, the Russians would get absolutely wrecked if they tried to like invade Poland.
1 Like
Keed, this is exhausting. Russia are so clearly the bad guys here. Looting, torture, deliberate targeting of civilians, relocating orphans, the list goes on and on.
I admit, a small dose of “actually, we’re the bad guys” can be healthy. When there are questions about the means and ends of policy goals, no nation is blameless. It’s also a luxury of living in a free democracy. I’m not saying the US has never done some of the items on that list.
Russia is engaged in genocide here. Full stop. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, they have the right to make their own treaties and security arrangements. However close they want to be to Europe and NATO can’t be a legitimate pretext for Russia to invade… unless you think Ukraine IS Russia’s sphere of influence, and NOT a sovereign nation.
Russia never HAD to start an offensive war here. They bear the cost of all this destruction and instability.
13 Likes
The neocon line of reasoning isn’t the only line of reasoning justifying the war.
1 Like
See, I focus my efforts against the terror and violence of my own state for really two main reasons. First of all, in my case the actions of my state happen to make up the main component of international violence in the world. But much more importantly than that, it’s because American actions are the things that I can do something about. So even if the United States were causing only a tiny fraction of the repression and violence in the world-which obviously is very far from the truth-that tiny fraction would still be what I’m responsible for, and what I should focus my efforts against. And that’s based on a very simple ethical principle-namely, that the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated consequences for human beings: I think that’s kind of like a fundamental moral truism… Again, it’s a very simple ethical point: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, you’re not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else’s actions.
Certainly the Russian war is bad. You’ll not see me defend it. Pointing out that, say, the 9/11 attacks were a predictable reaction to decades of destructive and wrong foreign policy in no way condones or excuses the terror attacks. Similarly, pointing out that wrongheaded US policies contributed to the current situation in Ukraine in no way is an endorsement of Russia’s war.
OK? The principal decision makers in Biden’s administration are all neocons. Biden, Nuland, Blinken. If they’re not then I can’t find any daylight between neocons and their philosophy. And they all supported the wars I mentioned above. Biden whipped votes for the Iraq war. Nuland was Dick Cheney’s foreign policy advisor before the Iraq war. So no, just because these clowns think they have a good reason for their proxy war doesn’t make it so. Again, they thought the same thing about Iraq.
The members of Congress who have voted to fund the war aren’t all neocons. The people in this thread who support the war aren’t neocons. That neocons might support the war doesn’t make it a bad thing and doesn’t mean that people with the same general policy preference have similar reasoning and are equally bad people.
1 Like
I didn’t say anyone was a bad person. You’re hung up on my word “neocon” I guess? Yeah I think Nuland, Blinken and Biden are neocons. But let’s say they’re not. They still all supported Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan.
So take “neocons” out of this post. It’s wholly irrelevant to my point. They think there’s a benefit to the Ukraine proxy war? I’m sure they do, just like they saw a benefit in all the other wars they supported.
It’s an irrelevant argument to someone like me who supports the war in Ukraine but opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning.
I wasn’t talking about you. You said:
So you’re talking about the US decision makers here. I’m pointing out that those exact same decision makers have been spectacularly wrong before, why in the world should we give them the benefit of the doubt now? Oh, Joe Biden and Vicky Nuland thinks it benefits the US? Who gives a shit?
I’m fine with them doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. You seemed to be characterizing them as irrational creatures who are acting crazy, which I don’t think is the case. A reasonable person with access to the same information can view the world very differently from the way you do.
Ok but you saying maybe there’s a good reason but you don’t see it is no sort of argument at all. So you getting in a big huff by me calling neocons neocons is lol.
Of course it excuses it. Your blathering about how this invasion was a predictable or necessary response to NATO expansion paints this war as being the fault of NATO, not Russia, and gives Putin cover for not choosing to just not invade, a choice that would have left basically everyone involved alive and good.
Also, let’s bear in mind what you’re blaming NATO, the EU, and Ukraine for doing: a sovereign nation entering into an agreement with others freely and nonviolently, at the behest of the leaders of all parties involved. No, that’s not some causus belli. At all.
I tend to be more charitable in thinking people are acting rationally. I’m probably more likely to do that about posters here, too.
the decision to fight against russia is with the ukrainians. wtf are you talking about? biden and blinken created an escape plan for zelensky
1 Like