5 ms·

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

• jacquesm 5y ago
  What is so weird about these things: every time you read a history book you go like 'Oh, I recognize that', and then it plays out exactly the same. This whole wave of isolationism and so called neutrality was an important factor in why WWII went as far as it did, if the world had stood united against Hitler/Germany from day #1 he would have had not nearly gone as far.
  • rayiner 5y ago
    Not everything is an analogy to WWII.
• rayiner 5y ago
  Countries tending to their own border security isn’t a matter of “good” and “evil.” Russia has far more basis for invading a rapidly arming country on its own border than the US did for invading Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • jacquesm 5y ago
    Russia has no basis for this at all, hence all the pathetic excuses they've been showering the gullible with. And yes, it's evil, and no, it has nothing to do with their border security, that's a ridiculous suggestion, in the same vein, you would be ok with Russia annexing Poland, Lithuania, Finland or Estonia because they are armed and bordering Russia. As for the whataboutism, that wasn't the subject.
    • Svettie 5y ago
      A perspective you don't share is ridiculous, so your explanation is "evil"? Maybe, it's more likely that you just don't understand it.
      • jacquesm 5y ago
        Sure, that must be it. Russia has a perfect right to encroach on whatever territories border their nation because they can't handle having sovereign nations at their borders. And of course after that they get to do it again. No, it's ridiculous.
        • Svettie 5y ago
          Again, something being ridiculous (to you) does not make it evil. And your straw man has nothing to do with my response
          • pcwalton 5y ago
            I'm happy calling initiating a completely preventable conflict that nobody wanted that has resulted in the deaths of 137, 17 of whom are Ukrainian civilians, and 316 wounded evil. There's no meaningful moral difference between what Putin did and outright murdering 17 people. He knew innocent Ukrainians (and, for that matter, innocent Russians) would die and didn't care.
            • rayiner 5y ago
              Well that’s not how anything works. E.g. how many babies might be saved by Russian economic development from having access to the sea through Ukraine? At this scale the moral calculus isn’t easy.
              • deleted 5y ago
                [deleted]
              • jacquesm 5y ago
                Of all the disgusting comments this really takes the cake. Russian economic development through war doesn't save Russian babies, it will kill them.
    • rayiner 5y ago
      A country on Russia’s border massing weapons isn’t a border security issue?
      • JamesBarney 5y ago
        Massing weapons in what sense? Not in any way that poses a threat to Russia, and the reason they were increasing their arms is because of the obvious threat Russia poses to them.
  • astine 5y ago
    "Russia has far more basis for invading a rapidly arming country on its own border than the US did for invading Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea." Ukraine's attempts to prepare against invasion do not justify said invasion.