I never said it should be. Read the thread.
So, it’s morally ok if stopping war and violence is not a goal of US foreign policy and not a goal of what we (posters on this forum) want US foreign policy to be?
That’s what other people in this thread are arguing, not me. That the US is stopping Russian violence and genocide, and that’s the goal of the US involvement. I’m arguing that isn’t the aim of US involvement and it won’t be the result. What the hell are you even talking about here?
Both sides in this thread feel sort of muddled, taking their preferred outcomes and working backwards to find reasoning without caring about logical consistency. I want to explore of there are any principles behind their beliefs.
Then why the fuck are you asking me about a position that I never put forth, and in fact, have actively been arguing against? Ask the people who are arguing for that. If you want to ask me about logical inconsistencies in my views, go ahead, but maybe read my posts and see what my views actually are first.
returning to ‘91 borders will stop violence and genocide perpetrated by russia in occupied territories. regardless if that’s the goal of helping ukraine, that’s the ukrainian goal.
I don’t think you can resolve that issue even if you strip things down to the point where the argument is about fundamental physics.
Hypothetical: if we knew more people would die in Ukraine if the US didn’t provide support, would you still prefer to stay out 100%?
I mean he could read people’s posts to try to understand their basic positions before he starts his probing Socratic inquiries.
Have you considered that maybe posters here aren’t great at communicating clearly?
Yes your posts the last couple of days certainly are a great illustration of that. If you find any of my posts unclear feel free to ask for clarification, but Socratic questioning where you misstate my positions by 180 degrees in the premise of your questioning will be met with further ridicule and hostility. As I said, read my posts before doing your Socrates impersonation.
Or better yet, drop the Socrates impersonation altogether and just have a regular conversation.
1 Like
No, the US is not itself stopping Russian violence. The Ukrainians are. The US is just giving them arms, but it’s the Ukrainians doing what they want to do to protect themselves from Russian violence and genocide. As much as you want to conflate this with world policing, police don’t just hand guns to other people to defend themselves with. This is funding and supplying Ukrainian self-defense.
2 Likes
This is how I converse normally irl.
Do you understand how irritating it is?
Probably why I don’t have friends.
2 Likes
@Devil This isn’t new, but it’s new to me.
“According to preliminary results of the damage site inspection, technogenic craters with a depth of 3 to 5 meters were found on the seabed at a distance of about 248 metres from each other,” it said.
“The section of the pipe between the craters is destroyed, the radius of pipe fragments dispersion is at least 250 metres. Experts continue to analyse the survey data,” Nord Stream AG added.
Doesn’t sound like commercially-made, surgical shaped charges to me, sounds like a fuckton of bulk explosives. Maybe makes sense if it would be relatively easy to repair precisely cut sections with a patch. Tough to patch a missing sixth of a mile.
The overall story is still very unclear. This article is about Nord Stream 1, which I think consists of two pipes.
“According to preliminary results of the damage site inspection, technogenic craters with a depth of 3 to 5 meters were found on the seabed at a distance of about 248 metres from each other,” it said.
“The section of the pipe between the craters is destroyed, the radius of pipe fragments dispersion is at least 250 metres. Experts continue to analyse the survey data,” Nord Stream AG added.
So the two craters are 248 m apart on the same “pipe”? What does it mean that the section in-between the craters is “destroyed”? Is it just lying there in a separate but intact section? Are pipe fragments dispersed in circles centered on the craters? Or is that whole section in pieces scattered 250 m from its original location?
The crater depth is consistent with an explosive amount of a few hundred pounds of TNT. But did the release of pressure from the line contribute to that? Did the gas in the line contribute energy to the explosions? Maybe those were both negligible, idk. From the pictures upthread of the end of the line, it looks like it was cleanly cut. How does that happen if someone just planted a 250 lb bomb next to it? Lots of unanswered questions.
Also, that article is from shortly after the explosions, so pretty old.
Experts continue to analyse the survey data," Nord Stream AG added.
No updates.
Would the sudden release of 200 bar from a severed pipeline cause a crater ten or fifteen feet deep? Maybe, I don’t know, but my intuition says no.