So is the Ukraine shredding this week or strategically losing?
Hard to keep track
Russia is inching closer to...capturing the 57th biggest city in Ukraine
Battles aren't fought over the population of the citizens, they are fought for strategic geographic positions in order to win the next battle.
@PurpleThrobber doesn't want to take Vantage for the campgrounds.
Sure.gif
Nothing strategic about Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv
Explain the strategic importance of...bakhmut
Strategic enough for Zelensky to throw thousands of soldiers there to die. I’ll take his word for it.
They held off Russia for 9 months there.
Whether or not they use the opportunity to counter attack soon will make or break that decision
Thanks for making my point. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t have fought for 9 months.
Why not? Theyve bled the Russians on a scale of 5 to 1 and tied up a lot of Russias best troops there
They are going to counter attack soon. Lipo
Tbf the Ukrainians need like 8 to 1 to successfully break the red army.
Both sides are hoping this battle will attrition the other into oblivion.
The Ukrainians hope that they kill enough Russians to destroy both political and strategic support.
And the Russians are hoping to force the Ukrainians into a single point defense that saps them of their professional troops.
Either way the US wins imo.
But innocents will die.
Innocents are dying either way.
Plenty of evidence of the red army doing its typical historical things right now in the Ukraine to any one who isn't Russian. This might be as bad if not morally worse than the Holodomor.
Both sides are committing atrocities.
It's war. It's not our war but it's war.
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't be there enabling half of the carnage - in the name of profit and DEMOCRACY!
Not our fight. Not even remotely.
Check the 71 pages, there were 7! Whole deaths per year from Ukrainians supposedly relentless shelling of the Donbass.
The Russians have no right to be there killing people in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions by the time this is over.
Moral equivalence I thought was the left's playbook.
There is simply morality. War atrocities are war atrocities.
Now, back to my question that went unanswered as to why brown people in the desert can kill one another and we? give no fucks....
Sorry, you're so enbedded in Team Checkers. The US has no business being in Ukraine.
Actually, it has a lot of business in Ukraine. It's all about the money.
So is the Ukraine shredding this week or strategically losing?
Hard to keep track
Russia is inching closer to...capturing the 57th biggest city in Ukraine
Battles aren't fought over the population of the citizens, they are fought for strategic geographic positions in order to win the next battle.
@PurpleThrobber doesn't want to take Vantage for the campgrounds.
Sure.gif
Nothing strategic about Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv
Explain the strategic importance of...bakhmut
Strategic enough for Zelensky to throw thousands of soldiers there to die. I’ll take his word for it.
They held off Russia for 9 months there.
Whether or not they use the opportunity to counter attack soon will make or break that decision
Thanks for making my point. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t have fought for 9 months.
Why not? Theyve bled the Russians on a scale of 5 to 1 and tied up a lot of Russias best troops there
They are going to counter attack soon. Lipo
Tbf the Ukrainians need like 8 to 1 to successfully break the red army.
Both sides are hoping this battle will attrition the other into oblivion.
The Ukrainians hope that they kill enough Russians to destroy both political and strategic support.
And the Russians are hoping to force the Ukrainians into a single point defense that saps them of their professional troops.
Either way the US wins imo.
But innocents will die.
Innocents are dying either way.
Plenty of evidence of the red army doing its typical historical things right now in the Ukraine to any one who isn't Russian. This might be as bad if not morally worse than the Holodomor.
Both sides are committing atrocities.
It's war. It's not our war but it's war.
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't be there enabling half of the carnage - in the name of profit and DEMOCRACY!
Not our fight. Not even remotely.
Check the 71 pages, there were 7! Whole deaths per year from Ukrainians supposedly relentless shelling of the Donbass.
The Russians have no right to be there killing people in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions by the time this is over.
Moral equivalence I thought was the left's playbook.
There is simply morality. War atrocities are war atrocities.
Now, back to my question that went unanswered as to why brown people in the desert can kill one another and we? give no fucks....
Sorry, you're so enbedded in Team Checkers. The US has no business being in Ukraine.
Actually, it has a lot of business in Ukraine. It's all about the money.
Same as the spin ever was.
When the brownies start murdering Russians or Chinese I'll be happy to arm them with cold War surplus too.
You keep thinking I'm screeching about this morally. I'm not. I don't have a ukr flag on my profile.
Lol, gentlemen, I just wanted to take the time to say it's been a pleasure posting the finer intricacies of the War in Ukraine (formerly known as the "Special Military Operation") with you all.
I thought Id commemorate the moment before we get to page 69 with a group photo:
So you you are the one with 11 holes-in-one in their first ever round of golf?
Lol, gentlemen, I just wanted to take the time to say it's been a pleasure posting the finer intricacies of the War in Ukraine (formerly known as the "Special Military Operation") with you all.
I thought Id commemorate the moment before we get to page 69 with a group photo:
So you you are the one with 11 holes-in-one in their first ever round of golf?
Makes sense.
Stay mad Putin bootlicker
Which Zelensky green tee shirt is your fav?
Its not the same one?
We've sent him billion$, I hope he would have at least two.
So is the Ukraine shredding this week or strategically losing?
Hard to keep track
Russia is inching closer to...capturing the 57th biggest city in Ukraine
Battles aren't fought over the population of the citizens, they are fought for strategic geographic positions in order to win the next battle.
@PurpleThrobber doesn't want to take Vantage for the campgrounds.
Sure.gif
Nothing strategic about Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv
Explain the strategic importance of...bakhmut
Strategic enough for Zelensky to throw thousands of soldiers there to die. I’ll take his word for it.
They held off Russia for 9 months there.
Whether or not they use the opportunity to counter attack soon will make or break that decision
Thanks for making my point. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t have fought for 9 months.
Why not? Theyve bled the Russians on a scale of 5 to 1 and tied up a lot of Russias best troops there
They are going to counter attack soon. Lipo
Tbf the Ukrainians need like 8 to 1 to successfully break the red army.
Both sides are hoping this battle will attrition the other into oblivion.
The Ukrainians hope that they kill enough Russians to destroy both political and strategic support.
And the Russians are hoping to force the Ukrainians into a single point defense that saps them of their professional troops.
Either way the US wins imo.
But innocents will die.
Innocents are dying either way.
Plenty of evidence of the red army doing its typical historical things right now in the Ukraine to any one who isn't Russian. This might be as bad if not morally worse than the Holodomor.
Both sides are committing atrocities.
It's war. It's not our war but it's war.
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't be there enabling half of the carnage - in the name of profit and DEMOCRACY!
Not our fight. Not even remotely.
Check the 71 pages, there were 7! Whole deaths per year from Ukrainians supposedly relentless shelling of the Donbass.
The Russians have no right to be there killing people in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions by the time this is over.
Moral equivalence I thought was the left's playbook.
Over 14000 between 2014-2022 3400 civilians If you trust Wikipedias numbers, I actually believe that the civilian # is much higher. That's just a tad higher than the 7 you said the 3rd party UN reported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
Weird thread going on here. Even the dimmest of bulbs in America must be seeing that we should not send one more fucking dollar to Ukraine now. Jesus. If it's a whoosh thread, well OK. But this PGOS cunt needs to own up to it.
Sad to see so called Americans bend over backwards to defend Russia of all fucking places.
Welcome to 2015 Hillary
Get some new material
Russia Russia Russia led to covid covid covid led to Zelensky lighting his country on fire. Allegedly
Maybe you and Vindman can get cocktails
2015 Hillary was grasping at straws. It was fake news
Russia actually invading their neighbors? Another Tuesday in world history
Not under Trump
If you weren't such a fucking blockhead you might get a clue
Vindman and his ilk attacked American democracy just like they accused Trump
I support America. Go suck Zelensky dick
It all fake news. Hello?
No shit. We agree on Trump.
If you werent such a blockhead, youd understand that sometimes you cant have constant wet dreams about Trump and realize that life goes on
So go ahead and reward the assholes who did it. Are you getting a cut or do you suck cock for free?
It's all fucking fake.
What is fucking fake about Russia being a constant menance to the world? Explain away that one...
The isnt the first rodeo
Ironic, because this describes you perfectly on this topic
Weird thread going on here. Even the dimmest of bulbs in America must be seeing that we should not send one more fucking dollar to Ukraine now. Jesus. If it's a whoosh thread, well OK. But this PGOS cunt needs to own up to it.
Sad to see so called Americans bend over backwards to defend Russia of all fucking places.
Who has defended anything that Russia has done?
A good number of people in this thread
Provide a specific example. Sounds like there’s a lot to choose from so should be easy.
Acknowledging the realities of the situation as it stands is not defending anything. You refusing to do that is just fandom, not analysis.
Lots of "Russia had no choice, NATO is expanding" sob stories, without understanding why NATO exists in the first place
Lots of "bio weapon labs" takes to justify the invasion
Lots of "Ukraine is full of Nazis" takes because they have a few groups of paramilitary Neo Nazis like every other country, including Russia
All excuses the Russians themselves use to justfiy invasion and genocide.
No one but a select few buys it
Many on here think it’s an unwinnable situation as it stands. You think it can be done with an unlimited budget and timeline and that we should be spending money for punitive punishment.
Disagree.
Ive said several times this is peanuts to the US and it doesnt involve US troops
Hope this helps.
It doesn't.
Allowing Russia to continue to invade and bully their neighbors will cost FAR more in the long run.
And might actually involve US troops doing the fighting and dying
If we can supply Ukraine with older weapons and let them do the fighting against the Russian horde, why not?
This is what Bot and I have been saying
It sucks this happened, it sucks Biden and the Dems routinely have this shit happening because they dont take hardline stances, everything about it sucks. But the milk is spilled, and Russia is getting a lesson in fuck around and find out.
You are so delusional you called my picture of blown up Russian armour propaganda.
Ok they had the lesson now lets negotiate a damn end to this so innocents on both sides stop dying... this song describes it best...
Just surrender the Rhineland comrade. It's the proper thing to do... for peace.
In 2022 Ukraine and Russia were making significant progress in negotiating an end to this War. The key was Russia pulling back and Ukraine renouncing NATO ambitions. Boris Johnson flew to Ukraine and blew it up. Why won't either you or PGOS address this?
Why does Russia have the right to dictate a sovereign nation's alliances under the threat of invasion and violence?
Use your big boy words.
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, Mexico joined an alliance with a China or a Russia. Then let’s say that 3rd party decided to put weapons systems on our southern border.
How would you expect the US to respond? Would you support, say, South Africa saying the US has no right to dictate Mexico’s alliances?
Run me through the thought-tree there. TIA.
This is what about ism. Hth.
But let's play the game. Why would Mexico want to align itself with either Russia or ChYnA?
No, it is not. It is a principled analogy based on a principle you espoused that “[x-country does not] have the right to dictate a sovereign nation's alliances under the threat of invasion and violence?”
Please to be defending said principle, or give valid reasons why y-variable might justifiably cause a deviation from principle.
Thank you.
It is, in that regardless of how the US would act, it is a principle. That's the definition of what about ism.
ATBS, I said I would play, now explain, why would Mexico want to align itself with either of those countries(existing) alliances?
Hypocrisy.
You can't move on to discussing the terms of y-variable when you haven't set the predicate for why, or how, a deviation from x-principle might be justified.
No country or man can pass the "he who has not sinned casts the first stone" test. That doesn't make right or wrong any less a thing.
Unless your a moral relativist but I doubt that's your position.
This is textbook whataboutism. Again, I've been arguing with Kremlin and CCP trolls for 20+ years now.
Not moral relativist.
ChrisRockist - "I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand"
Any world power with a veto vote at the UN almost certainly believes they get a say in what happens in their own back yard. Any attempt to usurp that perceived right by claiming moral authority ought have an extremely good reason. Moral authority is like trust and respect - all must be earned.
Therefor, how X-principle may or may not be impacted by y-variable deserve it's due.
I'm pro American unlike PGOS so when I engage in whataboutism it's to make a point, not condemn America
The US has a long standing no malarkey rule for the western hemisphere
Grenada, where we called in Clint Eastwood, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, and Chile among others have met the CIA when the Soviets meddle
Cuba was lost and democrats started supporting the Sandinista and Venezuela commies which makes things more difficult
Note that the democrats party has not been outlawed even though they support our enemies
Nobody was easier on the Soviets than Teddy and the gang
It all matters for a long walk to get perspective
America, like every country ever, has interests. It deviates in that it's interests are guided by principles to some degree rather than binary self interest.
My argument is that it's in our interest to strategically, and marginally, support Ukraine.
You can disagree.
This is not about merely supporting Ukraine. That takes us back to the February 2022 view. At issue is culpability due to malfeasant, maybe nefarious, geopolitical goals.
I am not convinced, nor do I expect to be convinced, this conflict benefits the common-man American in any way. People forget the ideal is of, by and for the people.
I'm pro American unlike PGOS so when I engage in whataboutism it's to make a point, not condemn America
The US has a long standing no malarkey rule for the western hemisphere
Grenada, where we called in Clint Eastwood, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, and Chile among others have met the CIA when the Soviets meddle
Cuba was lost and democrats started supporting the Sandinista and Venezuela commies which makes things more difficult
Note that the democrats party has not been outlawed even though they support our enemies
Nobody was easier on the Soviets than Teddy and the gang
It all matters for a long walk to get perspective
America, like every country ever, has interests. It deviates in that it's interests are guided by principles to some degree rather than binary self interest.
My argument is that it's in our interest to strategically, and marginally, support Ukraine.
You can disagree.
I came to the thought today that old school covert support would be fine
It's the grandstanding and all the morons crowing about how America and Europe need to do whatever it takes.
Just the worst fucking people. Literally like Putin
Not my team. No longer my country
Mostly agree. I see more Ukrainian flags than American ones which in and of itself is a fucking disgrace.
100% the establishment is using this for propaganda and pork. No argument from me there.
I just see Russia getting it's proverbial nuts kicked in repeatedly as a win for the USA.
Also FDR was a fucking communist, of course he gave up Europe. He would have given up the US had he lived.
The establishment and elites fiscal priorities are not ever a good enough reason to provoke a war. It has been the pretext for conflict after conflict after conflict for decades. No mas.
What is worse, back to chess analogies, is when you leave yourself exposed to getting your Queen and Rook forked with the potential for a mating combination. Inexcusable.
So is the Ukraine shredding this week or strategically losing?
Hard to keep track
Russia is inching closer to...capturing the 57th biggest city in Ukraine
Battles aren't fought over the population of the citizens, they are fought for strategic geographic positions in order to win the next battle.
@PurpleThrobber doesn't want to take Vantage for the campgrounds.
Sure.gif
Nothing strategic about Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv
Explain the strategic importance of...bakhmut
Strategic enough for Zelensky to throw thousands of soldiers there to die. I’ll take his word for it.
They held off Russia for 9 months there.
Whether or not they use the opportunity to counter attack soon will make or break that decision
Thanks for making my point. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t have fought for 9 months.
Why not? Theyve bled the Russians on a scale of 5 to 1 and tied up a lot of Russias best troops there
They are going to counter attack soon. Lipo
Tbf the Ukrainians need like 8 to 1 to successfully break the red army.
Both sides are hoping this battle will attrition the other into oblivion.
The Ukrainians hope that they kill enough Russians to destroy both political and strategic support.
And the Russians are hoping to force the Ukrainians into a single point defense that saps them of their professional troops.
Either way the US wins imo.
But innocents will die.
Innocents are dying either way.
Plenty of evidence of the red army doing its typical historical things right now in the Ukraine to any one who isn't Russian. This might be as bad if not morally worse than the Holodomor.
Both sides are committing atrocities.
It's war. It's not our war but it's war.
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't be there enabling half of the carnage - in the name of profit and DEMOCRACY!
Not our fight. Not even remotely.
Check the 71 pages, there were 7! Whole deaths per year from Ukrainians supposedly relentless shelling of the Donbass.
The Russians have no right to be there killing people in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions by the time this is over.
Moral equivalence I thought was the left's playbook.
There is simply morality. War atrocities are war atrocities.
Now, back to my question that went unanswered as to why brown people in the desert can kill one another and we? give no fucks....
Sorry, you're so enbedded in Team Checkers. The US has no business being in Ukraine.
Actually, it has a lot of business in Ukraine. It's all about the money.
Same as the spin ever was.
When the brownies start murdering Russians or Chinese I'll be happy to arm them with cold War surplus too.
You keep thinking I'm screeching about this morally. I'm not. I don't have a ukr flag on my profile.
And you guysm accused me of fucking strawman ass.
Take it up with the Quooks. We? are not the droid you are looking for.
I'm pro American unlike PGOS so when I engage in whataboutism it's to make a point, not condemn America
The US has a long standing no malarkey rule for the western hemisphere
Grenada, where we called in Clint Eastwood, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, and Chile among others have met the CIA when the Soviets meddle
Cuba was lost and democrats started supporting the Sandinista and Venezuela commies which makes things more difficult
Note that the democrats party has not been outlawed even though they support our enemies
Nobody was easier on the Soviets than Teddy and the gang
It all matters for a long walk to get perspective
America, like every country ever, has interests. It deviates in that it's interests are guided by principles to some degree rather than binary self interest.
My argument is that it's in our interest to strategically, and marginally, support Ukraine.
You can disagree.
This is not about merely supporting Ukraine. That takes us back to the February 2022 view. At issue is culpability due to malfeasant, maybe nefarious, geopolitical goals.
I am not convinced, nor do I expect to be convinced, this conflict benefits the common-man American in any way. People forget the ideal is of, by and for the people.
Lol, gentlemen, I just wanted to take the time to say it's been a pleasure posting the finer intricacies of the War in Ukraine (formerly known as the "Special Military Operation") with you all.
I thought Id commemorate the moment before we get to page 69 with a group photo:
So you you are the one with 11 holes-in-one in their first ever round of golf?
Lol, gentlemen, I just wanted to take the time to say it's been a pleasure posting the finer intricacies of the War in Ukraine (formerly known as the "Special Military Operation") with you all.
I thought Id commemorate the moment before we get to page 69 with a group photo:
So you you are the one with 11 holes-in-one in their first ever round of golf?
Makes sense.
Stay mad Putin bootlicker
Which Zelensky green tee shirt is your fav?
Its not the same one?
We've sent him billion$, I hope he would have at least two.
So is the Ukraine shredding this week or strategically losing?
Hard to keep track
Russia is inching closer to...capturing the 57th biggest city in Ukraine
Battles aren't fought over the population of the citizens, they are fought for strategic geographic positions in order to win the next battle.
@PurpleThrobber doesn't want to take Vantage for the campgrounds.
Sure.gif
Nothing strategic about Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv
Explain the strategic importance of...bakhmut
Strategic enough for Zelensky to throw thousands of soldiers there to die. I’ll take his word for it.
They held off Russia for 9 months there.
Whether or not they use the opportunity to counter attack soon will make or break that decision
Thanks for making my point. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t have fought for 9 months.
Why not? Theyve bled the Russians on a scale of 5 to 1 and tied up a lot of Russias best troops there
They are going to counter attack soon. Lipo
Tbf the Ukrainians need like 8 to 1 to successfully break the red army.
Both sides are hoping this battle will attrition the other into oblivion.
The Ukrainians hope that they kill enough Russians to destroy both political and strategic support.
And the Russians are hoping to force the Ukrainians into a single point defense that saps them of their professional troops.
Either way the US wins imo.
But innocents will die.
Innocents are dying either way.
Plenty of evidence of the red army doing its typical historical things right now in the Ukraine to any one who isn't Russian. This might be as bad if not morally worse than the Holodomor.
Both sides are committing atrocities.
It's war. It's not our war but it's war.
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't be there enabling half of the carnage - in the name of profit and DEMOCRACY!
Not our fight. Not even remotely.
Check the 71 pages, there were 7! Whole deaths per year from Ukrainians supposedly relentless shelling of the Donbass.
The Russians have no right to be there killing people in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions by the time this is over.
Moral equivalence I thought was the left's playbook.
Over 14000 between 2014-2022 3400 civilians If you trust Wikipedias numbers, I actually believe that the civilian # is much higher. That's just a tad higher than the 7 you said the 3rd party UN reported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
Let's assume "shelling by Ukrainian forces" and "total civilian deaths" to be exactly the same thing since we all know that the little green men wouldn't hurt a fly.
3400 over an 8 year period vs. ~20,000 confirmed dead in less than a year.
Weird thread going on here. Even the dimmest of bulbs in America must be seeing that we should not send one more fucking dollar to Ukraine now. Jesus. If it's a whoosh thread, well OK. But this PGOS cunt needs to own up to it.
Sad to see so called Americans bend over backwards to defend Russia of all fucking places.
Welcome to 2015 Hillary
Get some new material
Russia Russia Russia led to covid covid covid led to Zelensky lighting his country on fire. Allegedly
Maybe you and Vindman can get cocktails
2015 Hillary was grasping at straws. It was fake news
Russia actually invading their neighbors? Another Tuesday in world history
Not under Trump
If you weren't such a fucking blockhead you might get a clue
Vindman and his ilk attacked American democracy just like they accused Trump
I support America. Go suck Zelensky dick
It all fake news. Hello?
No shit. We agree on Trump.
If you werent such a blockhead, youd understand that sometimes you cant have constant wet dreams about Trump and realize that life goes on
So go ahead and reward the assholes who did it. Are you getting a cut or do you suck cock for free?
It's all fucking fake.
What is fucking fake about Russia being a constant menance to the world? Explain away that one...
The isnt the first rodeo
Ironic, because this describes you perfectly on this topic
Weird thread going on here. Even the dimmest of bulbs in America must be seeing that we should not send one more fucking dollar to Ukraine now. Jesus. If it's a whoosh thread, well OK. But this PGOS cunt needs to own up to it.
Sad to see so called Americans bend over backwards to defend Russia of all fucking places.
Who has defended anything that Russia has done?
A good number of people in this thread
Provide a specific example. Sounds like there’s a lot to choose from so should be easy.
Acknowledging the realities of the situation as it stands is not defending anything. You refusing to do that is just fandom, not analysis.
Lots of "Russia had no choice, NATO is expanding" sob stories, without understanding why NATO exists in the first place
Lots of "bio weapon labs" takes to justify the invasion
Lots of "Ukraine is full of Nazis" takes because they have a few groups of paramilitary Neo Nazis like every other country, including Russia
All excuses the Russians themselves use to justfiy invasion and genocide.
No one but a select few buys it
Many on here think it’s an unwinnable situation as it stands. You think it can be done with an unlimited budget and timeline and that we should be spending money for punitive punishment.
Disagree.
Ive said several times this is peanuts to the US and it doesnt involve US troops
Hope this helps.
It doesn't.
Allowing Russia to continue to invade and bully their neighbors will cost FAR more in the long run.
And might actually involve US troops doing the fighting and dying
If we can supply Ukraine with older weapons and let them do the fighting against the Russian horde, why not?
This is what Bot and I have been saying
It sucks this happened, it sucks Biden and the Dems routinely have this shit happening because they dont take hardline stances, everything about it sucks. But the milk is spilled, and Russia is getting a lesson in fuck around and find out.
You are so delusional you called my picture of blown up Russian armour propaganda.
Ok they had the lesson now lets negotiate a damn end to this so innocents on both sides stop dying... this song describes it best...
Just surrender the Rhineland comrade. It's the proper thing to do... for peace.
In 2022 Ukraine and Russia were making significant progress in negotiating an end to this War. The key was Russia pulling back and Ukraine renouncing NATO ambitions. Boris Johnson flew to Ukraine and blew it up. Why won't either you or PGOS address this?
Why does Russia have the right to dictate a sovereign nation's alliances under the threat of invasion and violence?
Use your big boy words.
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, Mexico joined an alliance with a China or a Russia. Then let’s say that 3rd party decided to put weapons systems on our southern border.
How would you expect the US to respond? Would you support, say, South Africa saying the US has no right to dictate Mexico’s alliances?
Run me through the thought-tree there. TIA.
This is what about ism. Hth.
But let's play the game. Why would Mexico want to align itself with either Russia or ChYnA?
No, it is not. It is a principled analogy based on a principle you espoused that “[x-country does not] have the right to dictate a sovereign nation's alliances under the threat of invasion and violence?”
Please to be defending said principle, or give valid reasons why y-variable might justifiably cause a deviation from principle.
Thank you.
It is, in that regardless of how the US would act, it is a principle. That's the definition of what about ism.
ATBS, I said I would play, now explain, why would Mexico want to align itself with either of those countries(existing) alliances?
Hypocrisy.
You can't move on to discussing the terms of y-variable when you haven't set the predicate for why, or how, a deviation from x-principle might be justified.
No country or man can pass the "he who has not sinned casts the first stone" test. That doesn't make right or wrong any less a thing.
Unless your a moral relativist but I doubt that's your position.
This is textbook whataboutism. Again, I've been arguing with Kremlin and CCP trolls for 20+ years now.
Not moral relativist.
ChrisRockist - "I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand"
Any world power with a veto vote at the UN almost certainly believes they get a say in what happens in their own back yard. Any attempt to usurp that perceived right by claiming moral authority ought have an extremely good reason. Moral authority is like trust and respect - all must be earned.
Therefor, how X-principle may or may not be impacted by y-variable deserve it's due.
Got it, you don't believe in the sovereignty of countries adjacent to world powers.
When do we invade Cuba? But for real this tim. Let's fucking tactically nuke those fucks since we have every right.
I'm pro American unlike PGOS so when I engage in whataboutism it's to make a point, not condemn America
The US has a long standing no malarkey rule for the western hemisphere
Grenada, where we called in Clint Eastwood, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, and Chile among others have met the CIA when the Soviets meddle
Cuba was lost and democrats started supporting the Sandinista and Venezuela commies which makes things more difficult
Note that the democrats party has not been outlawed even though they support our enemies
Nobody was easier on the Soviets than Teddy and the gang
It all matters for a long walk to get perspective
America, like every country ever, has interests. It deviates in that it's interests are guided by principles to some degree rather than binary self interest.
My argument is that it's in our interest to strategically, and marginally, support Ukraine.
You can disagree.
This is not about merely supporting Ukraine. That takes us back to the February 2022 view. At issue is culpability due to malfeasant, maybe nefarious, geopolitical goals.
I am not convinced, nor do I expect to be convinced, this conflict benefits the common-man American in any way. People forget the ideal is of, by and for the people.
Except that it does. I've pointed out several ways.
Inattention to my arguments doesn't make them invalid but I digress, you said you wouldn't be convinced otherwise.
So is the Ukraine shredding this week or strategically losing?
Hard to keep track
Russia is inching closer to...capturing the 57th biggest city in Ukraine
Battles aren't fought over the population of the citizens, they are fought for strategic geographic positions in order to win the next battle.
@PurpleThrobber doesn't want to take Vantage for the campgrounds.
Sure.gif
Nothing strategic about Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv
Explain the strategic importance of...bakhmut
Strategic enough for Zelensky to throw thousands of soldiers there to die. I’ll take his word for it.
They held off Russia for 9 months there.
Whether or not they use the opportunity to counter attack soon will make or break that decision
Thanks for making my point. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t have fought for 9 months.
Why not? Theyve bled the Russians on a scale of 5 to 1 and tied up a lot of Russias best troops there
They are going to counter attack soon. Lipo
Tbf the Ukrainians need like 8 to 1 to successfully break the red army.
Both sides are hoping this battle will attrition the other into oblivion.
The Ukrainians hope that they kill enough Russians to destroy both political and strategic support.
And the Russians are hoping to force the Ukrainians into a single point defense that saps them of their professional troops.
Either way the US wins imo.
But innocents will die.
Innocents are dying either way.
Plenty of evidence of the red army doing its typical historical things right now in the Ukraine to any one who isn't Russian. This might be as bad if not morally worse than the Holodomor.
Both sides are committing atrocities.
It's war. It's not our war but it's war.
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't be there enabling half of the carnage - in the name of profit and DEMOCRACY!
Not our fight. Not even remotely.
Check the 71 pages, there were 7! Whole deaths per year from Ukrainians supposedly relentless shelling of the Donbass.
The Russians have no right to be there killing people in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions by the time this is over.
Moral equivalence I thought was the left's playbook.
There is simply morality. War atrocities are war atrocities.
Now, back to my question that went unanswered as to why brown people in the desert can kill one another and we? give no fucks....
Sorry, you're so enbedded in Team Checkers. The US has no business being in Ukraine.
Actually, it has a lot of business in Ukraine. It's all about the money.
Same as the spin ever was.
When the brownies start murdering Russians or Chinese I'll be happy to arm them with cold War surplus too.
You keep thinking I'm screeching about this morally. I'm not. I don't have a ukr flag on my profile.
And you guysm accused me of fucking strawman ass.
Take it up with the Quooks. We? are not the droid you are looking for.
Listen brokowski, it's me wrastling with like 10 quooks, you, @PurpleThrobber with a chair, @RaceBannon off the top ropes with a monkey and all I got is @PostGameOrangeSlices as my relief. There may be some collateral.
So is the Ukraine shredding this week or strategically losing?
Hard to keep track
Russia is inching closer to...capturing the 57th biggest city in Ukraine
Battles aren't fought over the population of the citizens, they are fought for strategic geographic positions in order to win the next battle.
@PurpleThrobber doesn't want to take Vantage for the campgrounds.
Sure.gif
Nothing strategic about Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv
Explain the strategic importance of...bakhmut
Strategic enough for Zelensky to throw thousands of soldiers there to die. I’ll take his word for it.
They held off Russia for 9 months there.
Whether or not they use the opportunity to counter attack soon will make or break that decision
Thanks for making my point. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t have fought for 9 months.
Why not? Theyve bled the Russians on a scale of 5 to 1 and tied up a lot of Russias best troops there
They are going to counter attack soon. Lipo
Tbf the Ukrainians need like 8 to 1 to successfully break the red army.
Both sides are hoping this battle will attrition the other into oblivion.
The Ukrainians hope that they kill enough Russians to destroy both political and strategic support.
And the Russians are hoping to force the Ukrainians into a single point defense that saps them of their professional troops.
Either way the US wins imo.
But innocents will die.
Innocents are dying either way.
Plenty of evidence of the red army doing its typical historical things right now in the Ukraine to any one who isn't Russian. This might be as bad if not morally worse than the Holodomor.
Both sides are committing atrocities.
It's war. It's not our war but it's war.
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't be there enabling half of the carnage - in the name of profit and DEMOCRACY!
Not our fight. Not even remotely.
Check the 71 pages, there were 7! Whole deaths per year from Ukrainians supposedly relentless shelling of the Donbass.
The Russians have no right to be there killing people in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions by the time this is over.
Moral equivalence I thought was the left's playbook.
There is simply morality. War atrocities are war atrocities.
Now, back to my question that went unanswered as to why brown people in the desert can kill one another and we? give no fucks....
Sorry, you're so enbedded in Team Checkers. The US has no business being in Ukraine.
Actually, it has a lot of business in Ukraine. It's all about the money.
Same as the spin ever was.
When the brownies start murdering Russians or Chinese I'll be happy to arm them with cold War surplus too.
You keep thinking I'm screeching about this morally. I'm not. I don't have a ukr flag on my profile.
And you guysm accused me of fucking strawman ass.
Take it up with the Quooks. We? are not the droid you are looking for.
Listen brokowski, it's me wrastling with like 10 quooks, you, @PurpleThrobber with a chair, @RaceBannon off the top ropes with a monkey and all I got is @PostGameOrangeSlices as my relief. There may be some collateral.
Doing some logical-fallacy research and well, for the lulz
We shall call it the strawman-ass-fucker logical fallacy
Weird thread going on here. Even the dimmest of bulbs in America must be seeing that we should not send one more fucking dollar to Ukraine now. Jesus. If it's a whoosh thread, well OK. But this PGOS cunt needs to own up to it.
Sad to see so called Americans bend over backwards to defend Russia of all fucking places.
Welcome to 2015 Hillary
Get some new material
Russia Russia Russia led to covid covid covid led to Zelensky lighting his country on fire. Allegedly
Maybe you and Vindman can get cocktails
2015 Hillary was grasping at straws. It was fake news
Russia actually invading their neighbors? Another Tuesday in world history
Not under Trump
If you weren't such a fucking blockhead you might get a clue
Vindman and his ilk attacked American democracy just like they accused Trump
I support America. Go suck Zelensky dick
It all fake news. Hello?
No shit. We agree on Trump.
If you werent such a blockhead, youd understand that sometimes you cant have constant wet dreams about Trump and realize that life goes on
So go ahead and reward the assholes who did it. Are you getting a cut or do you suck cock for free?
It's all fucking fake.
What is fucking fake about Russia being a constant menance to the world? Explain away that one...
The isnt the first rodeo
Ironic, because this describes you perfectly on this topic
Weird thread going on here. Even the dimmest of bulbs in America must be seeing that we should not send one more fucking dollar to Ukraine now. Jesus. If it's a whoosh thread, well OK. But this PGOS cunt needs to own up to it.
Sad to see so called Americans bend over backwards to defend Russia of all fucking places.
Who has defended anything that Russia has done?
A good number of people in this thread
Provide a specific example. Sounds like there’s a lot to choose from so should be easy.
Acknowledging the realities of the situation as it stands is not defending anything. You refusing to do that is just fandom, not analysis.
Lots of "Russia had no choice, NATO is expanding" sob stories, without understanding why NATO exists in the first place
Lots of "bio weapon labs" takes to justify the invasion
Lots of "Ukraine is full of Nazis" takes because they have a few groups of paramilitary Neo Nazis like every other country, including Russia
All excuses the Russians themselves use to justfiy invasion and genocide.
No one but a select few buys it
Many on here think it’s an unwinnable situation as it stands. You think it can be done with an unlimited budget and timeline and that we should be spending money for punitive punishment.
Disagree.
Ive said several times this is peanuts to the US and it doesnt involve US troops
Hope this helps.
It doesn't.
Allowing Russia to continue to invade and bully their neighbors will cost FAR more in the long run.
And might actually involve US troops doing the fighting and dying
If we can supply Ukraine with older weapons and let them do the fighting against the Russian horde, why not?
This is what Bot and I have been saying
It sucks this happened, it sucks Biden and the Dems routinely have this shit happening because they dont take hardline stances, everything about it sucks. But the milk is spilled, and Russia is getting a lesson in fuck around and find out.
You are so delusional you called my picture of blown up Russian armour propaganda.
Ok they had the lesson now lets negotiate a damn end to this so innocents on both sides stop dying... this song describes it best...
Just surrender the Rhineland comrade. It's the proper thing to do... for peace.
In 2022 Ukraine and Russia were making significant progress in negotiating an end to this War. The key was Russia pulling back and Ukraine renouncing NATO ambitions. Boris Johnson flew to Ukraine and blew it up. Why won't either you or PGOS address this?
Why does Russia have the right to dictate a sovereign nation's alliances under the threat of invasion and violence?
Use your big boy words.
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, Mexico joined an alliance with a China or a Russia. Then let’s say that 3rd party decided to put weapons systems on our southern border.
How would you expect the US to respond? Would you support, say, South Africa saying the US has no right to dictate Mexico’s alliances?
Run me through the thought-tree there. TIA.
This is what about ism. Hth.
But let's play the game. Why would Mexico want to align itself with either Russia or ChYnA?
No, it is not. It is a principled analogy based on a principle you espoused that “[x-country does not] have the right to dictate a sovereign nation's alliances under the threat of invasion and violence?”
Please to be defending said principle, or give valid reasons why y-variable might justifiably cause a deviation from principle.
Thank you.
It is, in that regardless of how the US would act, it is a principle. That's the definition of what about ism.
ATBS, I said I would play, now explain, why would Mexico want to align itself with either of those countries(existing) alliances?
Hypocrisy.
You can't move on to discussing the terms of y-variable when you haven't set the predicate for why, or how, a deviation from x-principle might be justified.
No country or man can pass the "he who has not sinned casts the first stone" test. That doesn't make right or wrong any less a thing.
Unless your a moral relativist but I doubt that's your position.
This is textbook whataboutism. Again, I've been arguing with Kremlin and CCP trolls for 20+ years now.
Not moral relativist.
ChrisRockist - "I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand"
Any world power with a veto vote at the UN almost certainly believes they get a say in what happens in their own back yard. Any attempt to usurp that perceived right by claiming moral authority ought have an extremely good reason. Moral authority is like trust and respect - all must be earned.
Therefor, how X-principle may or may not be impacted by y-variable deserve it's due.
Got it, you don't believe in the sovereignty of countries adjacent to world powers.
When do we invade Cuba? But for real this tim. Let's fucking tactically nuke those fucks since we have every right.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.[7] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.[citation needed]
Both whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect.[8]
The context I've outlined is in fact important and my intent is not to use it as an argumentative ploy. Plus wiki gave me permission. I however have been discredited ad nauseum.
It's clear we disagree how the issue ought be framed.
All that said I find it ironic you use Cuba as an example. When during the Cuban missile crisis we demanded a stop of nuclear weapons a mere 90 miles from our border. Additionally, I'm sure I don't need to remind you the Bay of Pigs was an attempted incursion on the same sovereign nation.
When you look at the red-lines drawn by Russia in the decade-plus leading up to the current conflict, they are demanding a stop of NATO expansion and with that nuclear weapons on it's border.
Again I find that context extremely important. No ploy.
I'm pro American unlike PGOS so when I engage in whataboutism it's to make a point, not condemn America
The US has a long standing no malarkey rule for the western hemisphere
Grenada, where we called in Clint Eastwood, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, and Chile among others have met the CIA when the Soviets meddle
Cuba was lost and democrats started supporting the Sandinista and Venezuela commies which makes things more difficult
Note that the democrats party has not been outlawed even though they support our enemies
Nobody was easier on the Soviets than Teddy and the gang
It all matters for a long walk to get perspective
America, like every country ever, has interests. It deviates in that it's interests are guided by principles to some degree rather than binary self interest.
My argument is that it's in our interest to strategically, and marginally, support Ukraine.
You can disagree.
This is not about merely supporting Ukraine. That takes us back to the February 2022 view. At issue is culpability due to malfeasant, maybe nefarious, geopolitical goals.
I am not convinced, nor do I expect to be convinced, this conflict benefits the common-man American in any way. People forget the ideal is of, by and for the people.
Except that it does. I've pointed out several ways.
Inattention to my arguments doesn't make them invalid but I digress, you said you wouldn't be convinced otherwise.
I'm not convinced by the argument for mere economic benefit. I find it morally hollo.
So is the Ukraine shredding this week or strategically losing?
Hard to keep track
Russia is inching closer to...capturing the 57th biggest city in Ukraine
Battles aren't fought over the population of the citizens, they are fought for strategic geographic positions in order to win the next battle.
@PurpleThrobber doesn't want to take Vantage for the campgrounds.
Sure.gif
Nothing strategic about Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv
Explain the strategic importance of...bakhmut
Strategic enough for Zelensky to throw thousands of soldiers there to die. I’ll take his word for it.
They held off Russia for 9 months there.
Whether or not they use the opportunity to counter attack soon will make or break that decision
Thanks for making my point. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t have fought for 9 months.
Why not? Theyve bled the Russians on a scale of 5 to 1 and tied up a lot of Russias best troops there
They are going to counter attack soon. Lipo
Tbf the Ukrainians need like 8 to 1 to successfully break the red army.
Both sides are hoping this battle will attrition the other into oblivion.
The Ukrainians hope that they kill enough Russians to destroy both political and strategic support.
And the Russians are hoping to force the Ukrainians into a single point defense that saps them of their professional troops.
Either way the US wins imo.
But innocents will die.
Innocents are dying either way.
Plenty of evidence of the red army doing its typical historical things right now in the Ukraine to any one who isn't Russian. This might be as bad if not morally worse than the Holodomor.
Both sides are committing atrocities.
It's war. It's not our war but it's war.
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't be there enabling half of the carnage - in the name of profit and DEMOCRACY!
Not our fight. Not even remotely.
Check the 71 pages, there were 7! Whole deaths per year from Ukrainians supposedly relentless shelling of the Donbass.
The Russians have no right to be there killing people in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions by the time this is over.
Moral equivalence I thought was the left's playbook.
There is simply morality. War atrocities are war atrocities.
Now, back to my question that went unanswered as to why brown people in the desert can kill one another and we? give no fucks....
Sorry, you're so enbedded in Team Checkers. The US has no business being in Ukraine.
Actually, it has a lot of business in Ukraine. It's all about the money.
Same as the spin ever was.
When the brownies start murdering Russians or Chinese I'll be happy to arm them with cold War surplus too.
You keep thinking I'm screeching about this morally. I'm not. I don't have a ukr flag on my profile.
And you guysm accused me of fucking strawman ass.
Take it up with the Quooks. We? are not the droid you are looking for.
Listen brokowski, it's me wrastling with like 10 quooks, you, @PurpleThrobber with a chair, @RaceBannon off the top ropes with a monkey and all I got is @PostGameOrangeSlices as my relief. There may be some collateral.
The Throbber like his chances balling out with @pawz and @RaceBannon. Like Meadowlark, Curly and Goose.
So is the Ukraine shredding this week or strategically losing?
Hard to keep track
Russia is inching closer to...capturing the 57th biggest city in Ukraine
Battles aren't fought over the population of the citizens, they are fought for strategic geographic positions in order to win the next battle.
@PurpleThrobber doesn't want to take Vantage for the campgrounds.
Sure.gif
Nothing strategic about Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkiv
Explain the strategic importance of...bakhmut
Strategic enough for Zelensky to throw thousands of soldiers there to die. I’ll take his word for it.
They held off Russia for 9 months there.
Whether or not they use the opportunity to counter attack soon will make or break that decision
Thanks for making my point. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t have fought for 9 months.
Why not? Theyve bled the Russians on a scale of 5 to 1 and tied up a lot of Russias best troops there
They are going to counter attack soon. Lipo
Tbf the Ukrainians need like 8 to 1 to successfully break the red army.
Both sides are hoping this battle will attrition the other into oblivion.
The Ukrainians hope that they kill enough Russians to destroy both political and strategic support.
And the Russians are hoping to force the Ukrainians into a single point defense that saps them of their professional troops.
Either way the US wins imo.
But innocents will die.
Innocents are dying either way.
Plenty of evidence of the red army doing its typical historical things right now in the Ukraine to any one who isn't Russian. This might be as bad if not morally worse than the Holodomor.
Both sides are committing atrocities.
It's war. It's not our war but it's war.
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't be there enabling half of the carnage - in the name of profit and DEMOCRACY!
Not our fight. Not even remotely.
Check the 71 pages, there were 7! Whole deaths per year from Ukrainians supposedly relentless shelling of the Donbass.
The Russians have no right to be there killing people in the hundreds of thousands and probably millions by the time this is over.
Moral equivalence I thought was the left's playbook.
There is simply morality. War atrocities are war atrocities.
Now, back to my question that went unanswered as to why brown people in the desert can kill one another and we? give no fucks....
Sorry, you're so enbedded in Team Checkers. The US has no business being in Ukraine.
Actually, it has a lot of business in Ukraine. It's all about the money.
Same as the spin ever was.
When the brownies start murdering Russians or Chinese I'll be happy to arm them with cold War surplus too.
You keep thinking I'm screeching about this morally. I'm not. I don't have a ukr flag on my profile.
And you guysm accused me of fucking strawman ass.
Take it up with the Quooks. We? are not the droid you are looking for.
Listen brokowski, it's me wrastling with like 10 quooks, you, @PurpleThrobber with a chair, @RaceBannon off the top ropes with a monkey and all I got is @PostGameOrangeSlices as my relief. There may be some collateral.
The Throbber like his chances balling out with @pawz and @RaceBannon. Like Meadowlark, Curly and Goose.
Have fun, Washington Generals.
Everything is all fun and games until I get a trash can.
While searching for the above gif I'm pretty sure I found the gif to represent the tug on the daily.
Weird thread going on here. Even the dimmest of bulbs in America must be seeing that we should not send one more fucking dollar to Ukraine now. Jesus. If it's a whoosh thread, well OK. But this PGOS cunt needs to own up to it.
Sad to see so called Americans bend over backwards to defend Russia of all fucking places.
Welcome to 2015 Hillary
Get some new material
Russia Russia Russia led to covid covid covid led to Zelensky lighting his country on fire. Allegedly
Maybe you and Vindman can get cocktails
2015 Hillary was grasping at straws. It was fake news
Russia actually invading their neighbors? Another Tuesday in world history
Not under Trump
If you weren't such a fucking blockhead you might get a clue
Vindman and his ilk attacked American democracy just like they accused Trump
I support America. Go suck Zelensky dick
It all fake news. Hello?
No shit. We agree on Trump.
If you werent such a blockhead, youd understand that sometimes you cant have constant wet dreams about Trump and realize that life goes on
So go ahead and reward the assholes who did it. Are you getting a cut or do you suck cock for free?
It's all fucking fake.
What is fucking fake about Russia being a constant menance to the world? Explain away that one...
The isnt the first rodeo
Ironic, because this describes you perfectly on this topic
Weird thread going on here. Even the dimmest of bulbs in America must be seeing that we should not send one more fucking dollar to Ukraine now. Jesus. If it's a whoosh thread, well OK. But this PGOS cunt needs to own up to it.
Sad to see so called Americans bend over backwards to defend Russia of all fucking places.
Who has defended anything that Russia has done?
A good number of people in this thread
Provide a specific example. Sounds like there’s a lot to choose from so should be easy.
Acknowledging the realities of the situation as it stands is not defending anything. You refusing to do that is just fandom, not analysis.
Lots of "Russia had no choice, NATO is expanding" sob stories, without understanding why NATO exists in the first place
Lots of "bio weapon labs" takes to justify the invasion
Lots of "Ukraine is full of Nazis" takes because they have a few groups of paramilitary Neo Nazis like every other country, including Russia
All excuses the Russians themselves use to justfiy invasion and genocide.
No one but a select few buys it
Many on here think it’s an unwinnable situation as it stands. You think it can be done with an unlimited budget and timeline and that we should be spending money for punitive punishment.
Disagree.
Ive said several times this is peanuts to the US and it doesnt involve US troops
Hope this helps.
It doesn't.
Allowing Russia to continue to invade and bully their neighbors will cost FAR more in the long run.
And might actually involve US troops doing the fighting and dying
If we can supply Ukraine with older weapons and let them do the fighting against the Russian horde, why not?
This is what Bot and I have been saying
It sucks this happened, it sucks Biden and the Dems routinely have this shit happening because they dont take hardline stances, everything about it sucks. But the milk is spilled, and Russia is getting a lesson in fuck around and find out.
You are so delusional you called my picture of blown up Russian armour propaganda.
Ok they had the lesson now lets negotiate a damn end to this so innocents on both sides stop dying... this song describes it best...
Just surrender the Rhineland comrade. It's the proper thing to do... for peace.
In 2022 Ukraine and Russia were making significant progress in negotiating an end to this War. The key was Russia pulling back and Ukraine renouncing NATO ambitions. Boris Johnson flew to Ukraine and blew it up. Why won't either you or PGOS address this?
Why does Russia have the right to dictate a sovereign nation's alliances under the threat of invasion and violence?
Use your big boy words.
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, Mexico joined an alliance with a China or a Russia. Then let’s say that 3rd party decided to put weapons systems on our southern border.
How would you expect the US to respond? Would you support, say, South Africa saying the US has no right to dictate Mexico’s alliances?
Run me through the thought-tree there. TIA.
This is what about ism. Hth.
But let's play the game. Why would Mexico want to align itself with either Russia or ChYnA?
No, it is not. It is a principled analogy based on a principle you espoused that “[x-country does not] have the right to dictate a sovereign nation's alliances under the threat of invasion and violence?”
Please to be defending said principle, or give valid reasons why y-variable might justifiably cause a deviation from principle.
Thank you.
It is, in that regardless of how the US would act, it is a principle. That's the definition of what about ism.
ATBS, I said I would play, now explain, why would Mexico want to align itself with either of those countries(existing) alliances?
Hypocrisy.
You can't move on to discussing the terms of y-variable when you haven't set the predicate for why, or how, a deviation from x-principle might be justified.
No country or man can pass the "he who has not sinned casts the first stone" test. That doesn't make right or wrong any less a thing.
Unless your a moral relativist but I doubt that's your position.
This is textbook whataboutism. Again, I've been arguing with Kremlin and CCP trolls for 20+ years now.
Not moral relativist.
ChrisRockist - "I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand"
Any world power with a veto vote at the UN almost certainly believes they get a say in what happens in their own back yard. Any attempt to usurp that perceived right by claiming moral authority ought have an extremely good reason. Moral authority is like trust and respect - all must be earned.
Therefor, how X-principle may or may not be impacted by y-variable deserve it's due.
Got it, you don't believe in the sovereignty of countries adjacent to world powers.
When do we invade Cuba? But for real this tim. Let's fucking tactically nuke those fucks since we have every right.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.[7] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.[citation needed]
Both whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect.[8]
The context I've outlined is in fact important and my intent is not to use it as an argumentative ploy. Plus wiki gave me permission. I however have been discredited ad nauseum.
It's clear we disagree how the issue ought be framed.
All that said I find it ironic you use Cuba as an example. When during the Cuban missile crisis we demanded a stop of nuclear weapons a mere 90 miles from our border. Additionally, I'm sure I don't need to remind you the Bay of Pigs was an attempted incursion on the same sovereign nation.
When you look at the red-lines drawn by Russia in the decade-plus leading up to the current conflict, they are demanding a stop of NATO expansion and with that nuclear weapons on it's border.
Again I find that context extremely important. No ploy.
Guess who some of these "commentators" are. Plus, I've still engaged the argument and provided counters. Simply saying "the US did it!" at some point in history is weak sauce though. That's also not to say I can't hold both views, the US(and specifically the CIA) shouldn't be doing certain things and neither should the Russians.
Speaking of Cuba, I picked it contextually with intent. Why didn't finish the job and send troops? Tit for tat, if we are playing by Russian rules we would have just actually invaded as opposed to staging rebel forces. Let's roll! Russia sent 1,000,000 troops to Ukraine on a "special mission" to help "liberate territory back to Russia". We could way more easily turn Cuba into West Puerto Rico! I'm for it. It's adjacent to the US so them's the rules.
Comments
Now, back to my question that went unanswered as to why brown people in the desert can kill one another and we? give no fucks....
Sorry, you're so enbedded in Team Checkers. The US has no business being in Ukraine.
Actually, it has a lot of business in Ukraine. It's all about the money.
Same as the spin ever was.
You keep thinking I'm screeching about this morally. I'm not. I don't have a ukr flag on my profile.
And you guysm accused me of fucking strawman ass.
3400 civilians
If you trust Wikipedias numbers, I actually believe that the civilian # is much higher.
That's just a tad higher than the 7 you said the 3rd party UN reported.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
ChrisRockist - "I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand"
Any world power with a veto vote at the UN almost certainly believes they get a say in what happens in their own back yard. Any attempt to usurp that perceived right by claiming moral authority ought have an extremely good reason. Moral authority is like trust and respect - all must be earned.
Therefor, how X-principle may or may not be impacted by y-variable deserve it's due.
I am not convinced, nor do I expect to be convinced, this conflict benefits the common-man American in any way. People forget the ideal is of, by and for the people.
What is worse, back to chess analogies, is when you leave yourself exposed to getting your Queen and Rook forked with the potential for a mating combination. Inexcusable.
Too late to edit. I suck at Vanilla interwebs
3400 over an 8 year period vs. ~20,000 confirmed dead in less than a year.
Glad the Russians are saving all those people!
When do we invade Cuba? But for real this tim. Let's fucking tactically nuke those fucks since we have every right.
Inattention to my arguments doesn't make them invalid but I digress, you said you wouldn't be convinced otherwise.
We shall call it the strawman-ass-fucker logical fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.[7] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.[citation needed]
Both whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect.[8]
The context I've outlined is in fact important and my intent is not to use it as an argumentative ploy. Plus wiki gave me permission. I however have been discredited ad nauseum.
It's clear we disagree how the issue ought be framed.
All that said I find it ironic you use Cuba as an example. When during the Cuban missile crisis we demanded a stop of nuclear weapons a mere 90 miles from our border. Additionally, I'm sure I don't need to remind you the Bay of Pigs was an attempted incursion on the same sovereign nation.
When you look at the red-lines drawn by Russia in the decade-plus leading up to the current conflict, they are demanding a stop of NATO expansion and with that nuclear weapons on it's border.
Again I find that context extremely important. No ploy.
Have fun, Washington Generals.
While searching for the above gif I'm pretty sure I found the gif to represent the tug on the daily.
Speaking of Cuba, I picked it contextually with intent. Why didn't finish the job and send troops? Tit for tat, if we are playing by Russian rules we would have just actually invaded as opposed to staging rebel forces. Let's roll! Russia sent 1,000,000 troops to Ukraine on a "special mission" to help "liberate territory back to Russia". We could way more easily turn Cuba into West Puerto Rico! I'm for it. It's adjacent to the US so them's the rules.
Have long said take the US to them and save them the trip here