5 ms·

> If a country doesn’t want to operate within the confines of international law, does not honor international agreements, does not honor its word and commits wa

> If a country doesn’t want to operate within the confines of international law, does not honor international agreements, does not honor its word and commits war crimes — then the word “immoral” does not apply to any action taken to punish and stop the aggressor. You cannot have it both ways. You've just described the USA for the past 100 years here. The level of double standard here is reaching levels I've never expected before.

michaelmrose 5y ago
We are talking about the crime that is going on right now as we speak. Make your own submission on a century of bad behavior by America and discuss that there instead of diluting this one with whataboutism.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Alternative: let people discuss what they like.
- rank0 5y ago
  Are you aware the US is facilitating the ongoing war in Yemen? It’s all about strategic interests. The US commits war crimes when it suits our agenda…just like the Russians. It’s kind of scary how much power the USG has over the world. We’ll destroy the economies of our adversaries with almost ZERO resistance. Using the term “whataboutism” doesn’t make OPs argument untrue. Nobody in the US actually gives a shit about the Ukraine. It’s purely a strategic interest. We’re using the country as a pawn in our global political game. It’s fucked. If we really cared about war crimes we wouldn’t constantly commit them. Why aren’t US citizens outraged by the horrific warfare that occurs on a daily basis in our world?
  - patrickaljord 5y ago
    Could not have put it better. Doubt you will get any answer though.
  - brabel 5y ago
    > It’s purely a strategic interest. The funny thing is that Ukraine is actually pretty low as far as american interests are concerned... That's why the USA will absolutely not fight in Ukraine, as it has said repeatedly before and after the war started. Which makes the whole reason for this conflict to have developed into a full scale war - Ukraine's prospect of joining NATO, causing Russia to feel itself existentially threatened as it couldn't defend itself against NATO if that happened - extremely futile. America would gain nothing by Ukraine joining NATO (assuming no desire to actually launch an attack on Russia), but Russia had a lot to lose as they absolutely expected NATO aggression (if we wanted them to believe we didn't mean to attack them, perhaps we shouldn't have continued to expand to their borders in the first place despite their extremely strongly worded protests?!).
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      NATO has never been a force for unilateral aggression its a defensive pact. Russia was never been at risk from invasion from NATO for the same reason that nobody is attacking Russia right now they fear nuclear war. Russia being threatened is a lie. A pretext for expansion by mass murder. The entire phrase "expanding to their border" betrays a defective world view. Ukraine was considering joining a defensive pact to deter Russian aggression with obvious justification. The usage of "their border" somehow manages to imply ownership and violation. Nobody has a right to tell their neighbor they can't just a defensive pact or indeed any agreement whatsoever because of adjacency. Such deals don't take place by both parties standing on the dividing line and spitting onto Russian territory together. They take place within the respective countries capitals by their respective lawmakers. The murderer doesn't have a right to stop his victims from conspiring to resist him.
      - brabel 5y ago
        > The entire phrase "expanding to their border" betrays a defective world view. I've never read a sentence that so clearly ignores the meaning of the words it is rejecting. When NATO includes another country, it's expanding. This is the meaning of the word "expand", to grow - adding a new country to your territory makes you grow - or expand!! As Ukraine (as well as the Baltic states, which are already NATO) borders Russia, "expanding to the Russian borders" describes physically what it is that NATO is doing. I use words with their current meaning without trying to spin their meaning to express something that's occurring... if you think that's a "deffective world view" then you're way too far into the play of words of politics to be able to have a serious discussion about the topic.
mvc 5y ago
The USA at least subjects itself to elections, free press, democracy. That is the crucial difference. Democratic systems get it wrong sometimes. No doubt. I'm a UK citizen and disagreed with the war in Iraq waged in my name. But at least I was permitted to go out on the street and protest it. And eventually Blair was gone. And soon, so will Blowjo. But Putin has been around for long enough now, that he's starting to cause a bad smell in the world. And it might seem unjust that Tony Blair and the rest never saw the Hague. I live in hope. But I see that what Russia is doing now is completely unacceptable regardless of how it sees the world evolving. It's democracy vs autocracy and democracy will win because if it doesn't, then what's the fucking point.
- patrickaljord 5y ago
  > The USA at least subjects itself to elections, free press, democracy. If you drink the kool aid and choose to believe that, sure.
  - mvc 5y ago
    As opposed to the crypto pipe you've been smoking.
    - patrickaljord 5y ago
      I'm an open source contributor to crypto, it's not a pipe I can tell you that.
- wara23arish 5y ago
  Im not sure how you protesting makes a difference to all of the victims of the US wars. You being a democracy makes no difference whatsoever. Compare US victims of war to Russias over the last 2 decades. Tell me which seems more egregious. This isn’t to say what russia is doing is good. But I just don’t understand how you can cast stones when your house is made of glass.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  If anything does that not make the American people even more responsible and culpable of those war crimes since they actually have more power over their government's decisions?

michaelmrose 5y ago

We are talking about the crime that is going on right now as we speak. Make your own submission on a century of bad behavior by America and discuss that there instead of diluting this one with whataboutism.

pessimizer 5y ago
Alternative: let people discuss what they like.
rank0 5y ago
Are you aware the US is facilitating the ongoing war in Yemen? It’s all about strategic interests. The US commits war crimes when it suits our agenda…just like the Russians. It’s kind of scary how much power the USG has over the world. We’ll destroy the economies of our adversaries with almost ZERO resistance. Using the term “whataboutism” doesn’t make OPs argument untrue. Nobody in the US actually gives a shit about the Ukraine. It’s purely a strategic interest. We’re using the country as a pawn in our global political game. It’s fucked. If we really cared about war crimes we wouldn’t constantly commit them. Why aren’t US citizens outraged by the horrific warfare that occurs on a daily basis in our world?
- patrickaljord 5y ago
  Could not have put it better. Doubt you will get any answer though.
- brabel 5y ago
  > It’s purely a strategic interest. The funny thing is that Ukraine is actually pretty low as far as american interests are concerned... That's why the USA will absolutely not fight in Ukraine, as it has said repeatedly before and after the war started. Which makes the whole reason for this conflict to have developed into a full scale war - Ukraine's prospect of joining NATO, causing Russia to feel itself existentially threatened as it couldn't defend itself against NATO if that happened - extremely futile. America would gain nothing by Ukraine joining NATO (assuming no desire to actually launch an attack on Russia), but Russia had a lot to lose as they absolutely expected NATO aggression (if we wanted them to believe we didn't mean to attack them, perhaps we shouldn't have continued to expand to their borders in the first place despite their extremely strongly worded protests?!).
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    NATO has never been a force for unilateral aggression its a defensive pact. Russia was never been at risk from invasion from NATO for the same reason that nobody is attacking Russia right now they fear nuclear war. Russia being threatened is a lie. A pretext for expansion by mass murder. The entire phrase "expanding to their border" betrays a defective world view. Ukraine was considering joining a defensive pact to deter Russian aggression with obvious justification. The usage of "their border" somehow manages to imply ownership and violation. Nobody has a right to tell their neighbor they can't just a defensive pact or indeed any agreement whatsoever because of adjacency. Such deals don't take place by both parties standing on the dividing line and spitting onto Russian territory together. They take place within the respective countries capitals by their respective lawmakers. The murderer doesn't have a right to stop his victims from conspiring to resist him.
    - brabel 5y ago
      > The entire phrase "expanding to their border" betrays a defective world view. I've never read a sentence that so clearly ignores the meaning of the words it is rejecting. When NATO includes another country, it's expanding. This is the meaning of the word "expand", to grow - adding a new country to your territory makes you grow - or expand!! As Ukraine (as well as the Baltic states, which are already NATO) borders Russia, "expanding to the Russian borders" describes physically what it is that NATO is doing. I use words with their current meaning without trying to spin their meaning to express something that's occurring... if you think that's a "deffective world view" then you're way too far into the play of words of politics to be able to have a serious discussion about the topic.

mvc 5y ago

The USA at least subjects itself to elections, free press, democracy. That is the crucial difference. Democratic systems get it wrong sometimes. No doubt. I'm a UK citizen and disagreed with the war in Iraq waged in my name. But at least I was permitted to go out on the street and protest it. And eventually Blair was gone. And soon, so will Blowjo. But Putin has been around for long enough now, that he's starting to cause a bad smell in the world. And it might seem unjust that Tony Blair and the rest never saw the Hague. I live in hope. But I see that what Russia is doing now is completely unacceptable regardless of how it sees the world evolving. It's democracy vs autocracy and democracy will win because if it doesn't, then what's the fucking point.

patrickaljord 5y ago
> The USA at least subjects itself to elections, free press, democracy. If you drink the kool aid and choose to believe that, sure.
- mvc 5y ago
  As opposed to the crypto pipe you've been smoking.
  - patrickaljord 5y ago
    I'm an open source contributor to crypto, it's not a pipe I can tell you that.
wara23arish 5y ago
Im not sure how you protesting makes a difference to all of the victims of the US wars. You being a democracy makes no difference whatsoever. Compare US victims of war to Russias over the last 2 decades. Tell me which seems more egregious. This isn’t to say what russia is doing is good. But I just don’t understand how you can cast stones when your house is made of glass.
mardifoufs 5y ago
If anything does that not make the American people even more responsible and culpable of those war crimes since they actually have more power over their government's decisions?