4 ms·

This is whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Every country in history has made mistakes and perp

by awb 5y ago

This is whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Every country in history has made mistakes and perpetuated violence against their neighbors or fellow countrymen at some point in history. But I don't think it's a sign of progress to say "this bad thing happened 20 years ago or 200 years ago or 1,000 years ago, so I should be OK with it now." It's OK to make a bad decision in the past and a better decision today. Plus, no two countries, wars, circumstances, etc. are exactly the same. Comparing Ukraine to Iraq is missing the differences in the geopolitical, economic, cultural and ethnic state of affairs in the two scenarios.

WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
jeanluc_discard 5y ago
This is hypocrisy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy This isn't, "We did this bad and so we can't condemn you now." This is, "We did this over decades, constantly, everywhere, and it was consistently sanctioned and approved." The media smiled and the US people "supported their troops." You call this a "mistake in the past?" First, the US is still illegally there, taking Iraq's oil, a war crime, as it jumps up and down in moral outrage about this. Second, more importantly, they're not calling a mistake. The next step for us is to listen to why Russia is concerned with NATO expanding into the Ukraine. Russia just offered peace under one main circumstance, that the Ukraine declare itself neutral so that there is a buffer zone. Seems reasonable, especially considering that the US already has military bases in 50 countries -- maybe it can skip this one country. Maybe it's up to the Ukraine now.
- awb 5y ago
  Oof. This sounds like the official Russian narrative. It doesn't look like you're here to address OP's question, just to push your political views with a throwaway account. I'm not gonna take the bait, but maybe try Twitter, Reddit, FB, etc. They might be more receptive (at least to arguing with you).
  - jeanluc_discard 5y ago
    This is Ad Hominem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem I've been on HN since 2007 but only recently have I been afraid to voice some opinions on my main account.
  - empressplay 5y ago
    This is an incredibly dangerous position to take. Every argument should be taken on its merits, regardless of who else holds that position. Vilifying an argument simply because an adversary holds it is drifting in a direction you really do not want to go in, if you have any love of freedom whatsoever.
    - awb 5y ago
      No, just a distaste of debating propaganda. I think it's perfectly fine to ignore dubious arguments rather than engaging with them.
- monkeydreams 5y ago
  It's almost as if someone can believe that "The US should not have invaded Iraq" and "Russia should not invade Ukraine" at the same time.

by awb 5y ago

WaxedChewbacca 5y ago

jeanluc_discard 5y ago

This is hypocrisy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy This isn't, "We did this bad and so we can't condemn you now." This is, "We did this over decades, constantly, everywhere, and it was consistently sanctioned and approved." The media smiled and the US people "supported their troops." You call this a "mistake in the past?" First, the US is still illegally there, taking Iraq's oil, a war crime, as it jumps up and down in moral outrage about this. Second, more importantly, they're not calling a mistake. The next step for us is to listen to why Russia is concerned with NATO expanding into the Ukraine. Russia just offered peace under one main circumstance, that the Ukraine declare itself neutral so that there is a buffer zone. Seems reasonable, especially considering that the US already has military bases in 50 countries -- maybe it can skip this one country. Maybe it's up to the Ukraine now.

awb 5y ago
Oof. This sounds like the official Russian narrative. It doesn't look like you're here to address OP's question, just to push your political views with a throwaway account. I'm not gonna take the bait, but maybe try Twitter, Reddit, FB, etc. They might be more receptive (at least to arguing with you).
- jeanluc_discard 5y ago
  This is Ad Hominem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem I've been on HN since 2007 but only recently have I been afraid to voice some opinions on my main account.
- empressplay 5y ago
  This is an incredibly dangerous position to take. Every argument should be taken on its merits, regardless of who else holds that position. Vilifying an argument simply because an adversary holds it is drifting in a direction you really do not want to go in, if you have any love of freedom whatsoever.
  - awb 5y ago
    No, just a distaste of debating propaganda. I think it's perfectly fine to ignore dubious arguments rather than engaging with them.
monkeydreams 5y ago
It's almost as if someone can believe that "The US should not have invaded Iraq" and "Russia should not invade Ukraine" at the same time.