4 ms·
that's a bad-faith argument, it should instead be: Do you really want to allow systematic killing of the opposition by current un-elected criminals holding on
by DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
that's a bad-faith argument, it should instead be:
Do you really want to allow systematic killing of the opposition by current un-elected criminals holding on to power. Putin's intervention is not some kind of "hypothetical future danger or milestone in theoretic escalation" but has been fact since 1998.
Europe isn't going to do anything except sending their thoughts and prayers and direct intervention by the US is unthinkable (for now). Sending support (which includes arms, and mercenaries) is the only way that can protect the civilian population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93Russia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93Russia_relatio...
- ceilingcorner 6y agoNo, starting a civil war is exactly the wrong thing to do if you want to protect the civilian population.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y agothat's pretty hyperbolic. it's not "starting a civil war" it's leveling the playing field against those who are already brutalizing the population.
- baybal2 6y agoYou don't protect civilians by letting a mad genocidal regime mow down unarmed people with machineguns. The civil war is already de-facto going. People who tell to do nothing make peoples' of Belarus suffer in agony for longer. Look at Yugoslavia. You would've been still seeing Milosevic's smiling face from TV if not NATO, and EU not only arming Bosnians, but forcing the conflict, and bringing it to a boiling point. Only then the crazed genocidal generals started to actually feel... fear. And it was it what allowed for a relatively bloodless ouster of Milosevic in 97.