4 ms·
> but if we start to deliver heavy weaponry to any people who got innocently attacked and slaughtered by a larger aggressor, we would be at war with the United
by smt88 4y ago
> but if we start to deliver heavy weaponry to any people who got innocently attacked and slaughtered by a larger aggressor, we would be at war with the United States within the week
The US has not invaded a democratic, friendly country in several generations.
> If you don't treat similar situations similarly, the only option on how to act is in your own interest.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying if you can't save everyone, you shouldn't try to save anyone. Doing the right thing in Ukraine does not require doing the right thing everywhere.
There's no point in my arguing with you because you are starting with a moral premise -- black-and-white whataboutism -- that is both extreme and uncommon. Governments should do what their citizens vote them to do, and most voters/human don't agree that we should ignore Russia invading Ukraine because we don't support regime change in Turkey.
Applying your morality uniformly, Europe should either go on a worldwide rampage and try to topple every moderately corrupt leader (including those, like Zelenskyy, who were elected democratically), or they should allow Russia and China to build empires by toppling democracies. It's one or the other -- you can't be inconsistent, right?
- DocTomoe 4y ago> The US has not invaded a democratic, friendly country in several generations. Ah, so innocent civilians in countries the US does not consider democratic and/or friendly are fair game to be slaughtered. Gotcha. > Governments should do what their citizens vote them to do, and most voters/human don't agree that we should ignore Russia invading Ukraine because we don't support regime change in Turkey. If you read the article carefully, you will understand that in Germany, the split between '1939 revival world tour' and 'hey, maybe not get involved' is pretty much 50/50. In that case, government should default on keeping their options open without a full commitment - which incidentally is exactly what Scholz is doing. What is refreshing to see is that regardless of state-run media and the openly pro-NATO Springer press's best efforts, instead of people flocking into the jingoistic camp I do see people to become more sceptical. The situation is likely to topple completely in three to four months, when the heating period starts, but not the heating. > It's one or the other -- you can't be inconsistent, right? This is a wilful twisting of my argument, which was explicitly about which side to support in time of wars of aggression, the most of which originated on the other side of the Atlantic.
- eveningcoffee 4y agoIt looks like everything you care about is you wallet and your bottom (line).