3 ms·

Why does the west then have a say in whether North Korea builds nukes? What was the Cuban missile about? What gives the US the authority to build military bases

Why does the west then have a say in whether North Korea builds nukes? What was the Cuban missile about? What gives the US the authority to build military bases all over the middle east, then assassinate a general in Iran when they retaliate? The blind hypocrisy annoys me. If Mexico started building missiles near the border for defense you can bet the US would throw a fit.

ajuc 5y ago
1. there's no nukes in Ukraine nor new NATO countries, so it's not comparable But that's irrelevant, because 2. why should people in Ukraine be killed because USA did something in 60s? How exactly USA doing something bad justifies Russia killing Ukrainians? Also 3. how far back are we allowed to go with these? If 60s are OK, then can we go back to 40s? Russia murdered hundreds of thousands of captured prisoners back then. Does that make it OK for EU to kill some Cubans now? In 50s they also killed a lot of people, mostly anti-nazi resistance members who wanted independence for their countries. Then there was the whole Brezhnev doctrine and they invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Or maybe we can only go back to 90s? Russia sent KGB forces and army to invade Baltic states. They killed some people and went back after massive protests. This kind of "ethics" you present is why we had world wars. It's absurd, and I hope you realize that. BTW: have you defended USA invasions of Iraq by saying "but Russia invaded Czechoslovakia so it's fine"? Why not?
- Thiez 5y ago
  In the 60s? The US is still occupying Guantánamo Bay. It's ongoing. It's not about actions of the USA making the actions of Russia okay (or the other way around), it's about the hypocracy of one condemning the other.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    So far, every time I have seen the discussion of hypocrisy, it has been in direct reply to a person trying to discuss the [lack of] justification for invading Ukraine. In those cases, "it" (the conversation) is not about hypocrisy. Further, a nation isn't one person. Even a government isn't one person. Hypocrisy is hard to prove, and easy to throw into a conversation. If I were in a life-or-death national crisis, under attack in my home, I would be demoralized and furious with those taking the opportunity to make accusations against those trying to support me of hypocrisy on such a broad political scale ("that country is being hypocritical"), based on conflicts past. As a topic in a void, it's a legitimate accusation. But it seems so disrespectful to human life and human rights, given the context of the present.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    > it's about the hypocracy of one condemning the other What do you mean by "one"? I'm not American. And even if I was - why can't I condemn one crime if I wasn't condemning another? Your logic: "Are you against murder? You can't because you said nothing when that other particular person died. So now shut up and don't complain that your neighbor is being murdered. Otherwise you're a hypocrite."
- zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  My point was that other countries have reacted harshly when their borders are encroached upon... border security is a valid national concern. This is the same concern Russia had re: NATO troops in Ukraine. It was repeatedly dismissed during the _years_ of negotiation leading up to now. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy in this view to better understand what happened objectively and how it could have been prevented. Not to take sides, as if my personal condemnation of Russia makes any difference to someone in Ukraine right now.

ajuc 5y ago

1. there's no nukes in Ukraine nor new NATO countries, so it's not comparable But that's irrelevant, because 2. why should people in Ukraine be killed because USA did something in 60s? How exactly USA doing something bad justifies Russia killing Ukrainians? Also 3. how far back are we allowed to go with these? If 60s are OK, then can we go back to 40s? Russia murdered hundreds of thousands of captured prisoners back then. Does that make it OK for EU to kill some Cubans now? In 50s they also killed a lot of people, mostly anti-nazi resistance members who wanted independence for their countries. Then there was the whole Brezhnev doctrine and they invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Or maybe we can only go back to 90s? Russia sent KGB forces and army to invade Baltic states. They killed some people and went back after massive protests. This kind of "ethics" you present is why we had world wars. It's absurd, and I hope you realize that. BTW: have you defended USA invasions of Iraq by saying "but Russia invaded Czechoslovakia so it's fine"? Why not?

Thiez 5y ago
In the 60s? The US is still occupying Guantánamo Bay. It's ongoing. It's not about actions of the USA making the actions of Russia okay (or the other way around), it's about the hypocracy of one condemning the other.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  So far, every time I have seen the discussion of hypocrisy, it has been in direct reply to a person trying to discuss the [lack of] justification for invading Ukraine. In those cases, "it" (the conversation) is not about hypocrisy. Further, a nation isn't one person. Even a government isn't one person. Hypocrisy is hard to prove, and easy to throw into a conversation. If I were in a life-or-death national crisis, under attack in my home, I would be demoralized and furious with those taking the opportunity to make accusations against those trying to support me of hypocrisy on such a broad political scale ("that country is being hypocritical"), based on conflicts past. As a topic in a void, it's a legitimate accusation. But it seems so disrespectful to human life and human rights, given the context of the present.
- ajuc 5y ago
  > it's about the hypocracy of one condemning the other What do you mean by "one"? I'm not American. And even if I was - why can't I condemn one crime if I wasn't condemning another? Your logic: "Are you against murder? You can't because you said nothing when that other particular person died. So now shut up and don't complain that your neighbor is being murdered. Otherwise you're a hypocrite."
zaptheimpaler 5y ago
My point was that other countries have reacted harshly when their borders are encroached upon... border security is a valid national concern. This is the same concern Russia had re: NATO troops in Ukraine. It was repeatedly dismissed during the _years_ of negotiation leading up to now. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy in this view to better understand what happened objectively and how it could have been prevented. Not to take sides, as if my personal condemnation of Russia makes any difference to someone in Ukraine right now.