9 ms·

>Because you invaded a country for no reason (like we did to Iraq), (except the one you invaded is at your borders and we put our guy at its head a couple years

>Because you invaded a country for no reason (like we did to Iraq), (except the one you invaded is at your borders and we put our guy at its head a couple years ago, and the one we invaded is half a planet from us), we will bring forth the apocalypse. Humans are crazy, seeing how we're speaking about a nuclear war now vs how people spoke about it in the 60s, it's like a mass psychosis, we don't care anymore, or maybe we're too dumb to think about the horrors of something before living through it. Now bring in the downvotes because somehow what I said hurts your (allegiance to the flag since elementary school) sense of nat.. patriotism.

eecc 4y ago
mostly agreeable except for the premise that Ukrainians should be a passive lot that either should’ve resigned themselves to remain an impoverished, looted, vassal state like Belarus or Russia itself, or are acting as a pawn in US geopolitical hands. They — seemingly — aspire to more than that.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  There was nothing passive about this. There was a clear peace plan and Ukraine refused to implement any of it[1][2]. December 2020 there was to be a discussion on the matter in the UNSC but Germany and France refused it, which were actual guarantors of the peace plan. [1] https://www.ibtimes.com/minsk-ceasefire-deal-full-text-agreement-between-russia-ukraine-germany-france-1814468 https://www.ibtimes.com/minsk-ceasefire-deal-full-text-agree... [2] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/09/13/what-are-the-minsk-agreements https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/09/13/...
  - _visgean 4y ago
    lol are you saying that UA is reponsible for breaking the peace? You mean the country that got invaded? By the country that guaranteed its territorial sovereignty.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  > mostly agreeable except for the premise that Ukrainians should be a passive lot that either should’ve resigned themselves How did you divine this? Actually never mind: the OP is working off of either a quote from somewhere else (not the submission) or a mock-statement which is supposed to be said by people he/she disagrees with. What a confusing subthread.
ptr 4y ago
I wonder if it’s the Internet’s fault. Maybe people have become so jaded by Online discourse and carry it over into IRL?
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Also people in the 60s lived through a nuke (1945) and lived through WW2. That living memory is now gone. The problem with the "anti-war" crowd right now, is many appear to be closet Putin supporters. Or at least they're so anti-American that they support Putin by default. It would help the anti-war people not in that camp to carefully disambiguate between wanting to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict -- a laudable goal -- and support for Putin's imperial aggression.
  - stareatgoats 4y ago
    > many appear to be closet Putin supporter This is the eternal paradox of being anti-war: if you are advocating peace in a polarized situation you are essentially aiding and abetting the enemy. The anti-war movement really only has one window of opportunity: in a non- or low-polarized situation create strong trade ties, international agreements and intercultural understanding and hope that it can fetter the always active belligerents on all sides to a sufficient degree. When the polarization reaches a certain level (sufficient number of people killed or maimed on both sides and the killing frenzy rhetoric has taken hold) all we can do is go silent and watch as the world goes down in flames. The most realistic hope is likely that there is a new window of opportunity to build on thereafter when the horrific memories of war are still live in memory. But there is of course always a desperate, albeit likely unrealistic hope that people in charge will come to their senses before it is too late.
    - notthatmccarthy 4y ago
      > This is the eternal paradox of being anti-war: if you are advocating peace in a polarized situation you are essentially aiding and abetting the enemy. There is no such paradox. True patriots simply do not want their beloved countries to bloody their hands with the murder of foreign people. Not to mention with the total annihilation of the entire human race. Of course those who are opposed to the war should protest. "People in charge" don't just come to their senses. Democratic societies especially have mechanisms in place to ensure that there's no need to wait for anyone to come to their senses. If elected leaders are abusing their power to murder and destroy, those elected leaders can be replaced, legally and democratically and without much fuss. That there is fuss is only the result of those people clinging to power and not wanting to let go. But the rest of us should fight to take power away from their hands. We should not let mad, bloodthirsty assholes keep power. If you don't want your country to go to war, if you don't want your country to bomb foreign people, if you don't want your country to use its "nuclear deterrent" to start, or compound, a nuclear holocaust, then protest. Protest as if it was a very important thing, because it is a very damned important thing. And btw, this applies to Russians also. You're forgetting, in your "paradox", that a Russian anti-war movement exists and that its people protest and don't give a dime about "paradoxes". And they're not even citizens of a democratic country that makes special space for such protests in its legislation. They're persecuted and beaten up and put into jail. But they protest because there is no other way.
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
> we will bring forth the apocalypse. This word is often misused. Are you still worried about someone bringing it forth, now that you know what it means? apocalypse (n.) late 14c., "revelation, disclosure," from Church Latin apocalypsis "revelation," from Greek apokalyptein "uncover, disclose, reveal," from apo "off, away from" (see apo-) + kalyptein "to cover, conceal" (from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save"). The Christian end-of-the-world story is part of the revelation in John of Patmos' book "Apokalypsis" (a title rendered into English as pocalipsis c. 1050, "Apocalypse" c. 1230, and "Revelation" by Wyclif c. 1380). https://www.etymonline.com/word/apocalypse#etymonline_v_15471 https://www.etymonline.com/word/apocalypse#etymonline_v_1547...
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  What’s the objection here?
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    I am not saying people are dumb for using the word, just that it is impercise, and there are better words, such as Armageddon, cataclysm, and holocaust. (The latter being specifically destruction by fire)
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      Apocalypse/Armageddon mean the same thing in normal talk. It doesn’t matter that one of them comes from “Mount of Megiddo”. If you want to be “smart” in your communication, being etymologically precise might not be what you want to do. If you use lower-h holocaust to describe nuclear <word for the end of the world as we know it> you are just inviting derailment of the conversation.
- jleahy 4y ago
  The word refers to the book of revelation, which describes war followed by famine and death. I would not say the word is being misused.
Silverback_VII 4y ago
Isn't it the same frenzy with which people advocated for lockdowns, masks and destroyed some peoples careers because they didn't want to take the shot? What I find inspiring is that billionaires like Musk are suddenly making moves to defuse the situation.
- _visgean 4y ago
  > like Musk are suddenly making moves to defuse the situation. he is parroting russian propaganda word for word. (and russia is also quoting him)
  - brabel 4y ago
    Why do you think he's doing that? Because he's being paid by Russia? Or he's just a Russia lover? Or is there any chance that he just thinks that without compromises on both sides, the war will continue for a long time and nobody will benefit from that, specially no the Ukrainians themselves?
    - _visgean 4y ago
      my conspiracy theory is that he is acting full crazy in order to stop the twitter deal by scaring regulators in us and eu.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    He's basically suggesting the Minsk agreements are followed and what a lot of other Western geopolitical experts are saying. What is your suggestion on how to handle the millions of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukranine? Ethnically cleanse them all?
    - _visgean 4y ago
      My suggestion? Let them live where they are.
      - deleted 4y ago
_visgean 4y ago
Who are you quoting? > we put our guy at its head a couple years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el... this is denying that ukraine has agency of its own. Nobody put a guy anywhere. He was elected. > we will bring forth the apocalypse. The only country that is threating 1st strike is Russia.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  - _visgean 4y ago
    Here you go https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/30/putin-annexation-speech-more-angry-taxi-driver-than-head-of-state-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/30/putin-annexati... > literally begged NATO to do preemptive nuclear strikes against Russia 3 days ago he did not say that these strikes be nuclear https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/zelenskys-staff-forced-to-clarify-statement-after-president-suggests-preventive-strike-on-russia https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/zelenskys-staff-forced... but also it matters very little as UA has no nuclear weapons (because it gave them to russia for teritotial guarantees which turned out just great...)
  - flohofwoe 4y ago
    It really doesn't make much sense to lookup Putin's speeches, because as became obvious over the last couple of months, as soon as he's opening his mouth, a lie comes out.
    - Normille 4y ago
      >It really doesn't make much sense to lookup Putin's speeches... It does if you're arguing not about whether what he said was true or not, but whether he eactually said what you're accusing him of saying. >as soon as he's opening his mouth, a lie comes out. So, just a regular politician, then. But wait! --It's like one of those logic puzzles then. So, if everything he says is a lie and he says he's goiung to use nuclear weapons... then that means he's NOT going to use nuclear weapons. Hurrah! --we're saved!
cm2187 4y ago
I am struggling with the alternative. So a dictator can invade any country he wants because otherwise he can say "booh, nuclear apocalypse" and because we can't risk to be anywhere near that, we need to give the dictator whatever he wants? And the invaded country has to swallow it? It's easy to write off other people's freedom. This map is very the reason why Putin's threats are empty threats. The US, UK and France have nukes pointed at every single major Russian city, and as far as I am aware, Putin cannot stop them if he were to decide to go that route. There is nothing in what he has done so far that seems to suggest he is either crazy, suicidal, or doesn't care about his mark on history.
- Normille 4y ago
  Logically then, you should approve of Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons. Because, otherwise, they might leave themselves open to invasion by some 'bully' [mentioning no names]. In fact, let's give every country in the world nuclear weapons. Then no-one will dare to attack anyone else and peace will reign everywhere.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  > we need to give the dictator whatever he wants Not whatever he wants. Some token prize that's big enough that he can protect his own ass domestically, but small enough that a re-run is obviously a bad idea. The big downside is future dictators realize that nuclear blackmail is a get out of jail free card, which increases future wars and nuclear proliferation.
- jotm 4y ago
  He's more like a typical 4chan/Reddit troll. Meaning he cares about his comfy life even though he wants much more in life (even though he's got a lot already, but humans often overlook what they have and want more).
- einpoklum 4y ago
  > So a dictator can invade any country he wants Let me guess: You live in the US. For most people in the world, the situation is that the US, and possibly some neighboring regional power, can invade whenever they want; and at best we can offer limited initial resistance and guerilla/terrorist attack once they've occupied. But "with food comes appetite": The US government has normalized, among its citizens, the presumption of military intervention where and when it likes. That is deplorable. What's worse, though, is that it can stretch the same trick as far as nuclear war. That is, most US'ers seem to be willing to risk the destruction of all humanity because " 'We' can't let the dictator-of-the-day invade this country we don't care about and can probably not even place on a map!"
marvin 4y ago
I have no idea who you are quoting. But bowing down to nuclear threats increases the chance of nuclear war. This is because it will cause more nuclear threats in the future, and also strongly incentivize most non-nuclear countries to acquire nuclear weapons. We currently see NATO provide very stern back-channel warnings against nuclear weapon use to Russia. This is deterrence, which again decreases the chance of nuclear weapon use. Similarly, providing military support to countries that are invaded decreases the risk of future invasions all over the world, since it makes the cost that much higher for someone who wants to achieve their goals by military force. We can all agree that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, and that the United States has made many such mistakes. But the current support for Ukraine's self defense is a completely different sort of situation, and has little to do with allegiance to any particular country. It does also support the USA's geopolitical interests as a side effect, which is why the US is so strongly involved, but the deterrence effect is the main reason it's important. It serves the same goal you're aiming towards -- long-term peace and trade, and ensuring nuclear weapons are never used.
- chuckschnitzel 4y ago
  "long-term peace and trade, and ensuring nuclear weapons are never used" is precisely and explicitly what the US nuclear arsenal is protecting: unrivalled power for the US with no foe capable of resisting it. For this goal they (just like Russia) are willing to risk the lives of millions, see https://critisticuffs.org/texts/ukraine-russia-usa https://critisticuffs.org/texts/ukraine-russia-usa and the quotes from US military doctrines referenced therein.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  > We can all agree that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, and that the United States has made many such mistakes. Why was it a mistake? It’s unclear what “mistake” means.
  - chaosbolt 4y ago
    >Why was it a mistake? It’s unclear what “mistake” means. Tbh killing a million civilians for oil isn't a mistake, a mistake is like when you make spelling mistakes or trip and fall because you miscalculated, killing a million civilians for oil is just a warcrime, then the US might go on and on about Japan not apologizing for Nanjing for example, or just do business with Saudi Arabia who stone (aka THROW STONES ON WOMEN UNTIL THEY DIE) or decapitate people for adultery or some other trivial thing, or even Israel and the textbook Apartheid they subjugate the Palestinians to. I'm saying this because I just got tired of the current narrative of the US playing the good guys and Putin being the bad guy, all politicians are bad guys, and seeing how the USSR disolved on the basis that NATO would not expand further, and it still did and now it has missiles stationed in Poland, and then the west backs a coup that resulted in Zelenskyy's predecessor then in Zelenskyy, I don't understand how that would be different as say Mexico or Canada having their government toppled by a Russian backed gov. And spare me the "nukes" are deterrent talk, a nuclear war can escalate in 1 hour and kill >99% of humans on the planet, I love my country and other European countries, but if you made me chose between losing a chunk of it or 99% of people in the world dying? Come on...
admissionsguy 4y ago
> except the one you invaded is at your borders and we put our guy at its head a couple years ago, and the one we invaded is half a planet from us I know neoconservatism went out of fashion after Iraq, but the US-dominated system thrives on making everyone freer and the world more open, and it's a good thing. Coup or no coup, expansion of the US sphere of influence is good, and expansion of the Russian influence is bad, it's that simple in my view as an Eastern European (as it is on the eyes of the vast majority of people liberated from the Soviet/Russian world).
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  Neoconservatism went out of fashion because the neocons pushed for wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East, and completely destroyed the region for nearly two decades (and counting). American actions during this period severely undermined the international legal order, violating prohibitions on wars of aggression, torture, and assassination.
risyachka 4y ago
So when some country invades the country you live in (you will be forced to stay there after invasion) and basically enslave all population, you will say, "Sure, I am fine with that, just don't start a nuclear war", right?
anovikov 4y ago
It's simply because the stocks of nuclear weapons are now so much smaller they can't bring nearly the end of the world. Plus, in 1960s many still lived under illusion that communism/dictatorship provided some viable alternative to evils of capitalism. Now it is too dead obvious they don't.
keewee7 4y ago
>and we put our guy at its head a couple years ago >we will bring forth the apocalypse Your comment is pushing Russian lies about the 2014 revolution in Ukraine and the only one bringing apocalypse closer is Russia. As a European with many Polish and Ukrainian friends and coworkers I'm happy that libertarian isolationist Americans only have a say on Hacker News and r/Conspiracy. The world would be a worse place if American libertarians had a say in foreign policy.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  the lie that the US was heavily involved in the coup?
  - risyachka 4y ago
    There was no coup my friend. You weren't there and don't know how it all went but you feel free to call it a coup lol. I was there, my college friends were. And we all went because there of the shit that was going on. But it is too simple for conspirators so let's add some ruski propaganda and through in some coups and western puppeteers.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      People call it a "revolution" though, don't they? Is there really a substantial semantical difference, or is it purely a rhetorical way of using nicer words?
dandanua 4y ago
> Now bring in the downvotes because ... Cheap tactics. People will downvote you because you're saying lies and non-sense. 1. It's Russia started the genocidal war and it's Russia uses nuclear blackmail. 2. Ukrainian president was elected in 2019, no one appointed him. 3. Without nuclear deterrence Russia would already use nuclear strikes, because their army is good only in fighting unarmed civilians. 4. There is indeed a mass psychosis - in Russia. But "we" are normal people, we do care, and we are not dumb to see the threats.
warinukraine 4y ago
IAmGraydon 4y ago
>Humans are crazy, seeing how we're speaking about a nuclear war now vs how people spoke about it in the 60s, it's like a mass psychosis, we don't care anymore, or maybe we're too dumb to think about the horrors of something before living through it. I too believe there is some sort of mass psychosis going on. It started before Covid, but seems to have been massively compounded by it. It has its roots in a struggle for power, both national and individual. I think that people feel that their personal power has been taken away and that they have been oppressed through inequality and subjugation to authoritarian political policies. This has had the dual effect of creating a sense of hopelessness for their futures and the idea that there isn’t a future to live for. I think that for many individuals, the war against Russia is a proxy for their own struggles for personal power. They want to see authoritarianism lose because of their own struggle against it. If it doesn’t, what is there for them to live for? They’re willing to sacrifice all for it.

eecc 4y ago

mostly agreeable except for the premise that Ukrainians should be a passive lot that either should’ve resigned themselves to remain an impoverished, looted, vassal state like Belarus or Russia itself, or are acting as a pawn in US geopolitical hands. They — seemingly — aspire to more than that.

rjzzleep 4y ago
There was nothing passive about this. There was a clear peace plan and Ukraine refused to implement any of it[1][2]. December 2020 there was to be a discussion on the matter in the UNSC but Germany and France refused it, which were actual guarantors of the peace plan. [1] https://www.ibtimes.com/minsk-ceasefire-deal-full-text-agreement-between-russia-ukraine-germany-france-1814468 https://www.ibtimes.com/minsk-ceasefire-deal-full-text-agree... [2] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/09/13/what-are-the-minsk-agreements https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/09/13/...
- _visgean 4y ago
  lol are you saying that UA is reponsible for breaking the peace? You mean the country that got invaded? By the country that guaranteed its territorial sovereignty.
avgcorrection 4y ago
> mostly agreeable except for the premise that Ukrainians should be a passive lot that either should’ve resigned themselves How did you divine this? Actually never mind: the OP is working off of either a quote from somewhere else (not the submission) or a mock-statement which is supposed to be said by people he/she disagrees with. What a confusing subthread.

ptr 4y ago

I wonder if it’s the Internet’s fault. Maybe people have become so jaded by Online discourse and carry it over into IRL?

hackerlight 4y ago
Also people in the 60s lived through a nuke (1945) and lived through WW2. That living memory is now gone. The problem with the "anti-war" crowd right now, is many appear to be closet Putin supporters. Or at least they're so anti-American that they support Putin by default. It would help the anti-war people not in that camp to carefully disambiguate between wanting to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict -- a laudable goal -- and support for Putin's imperial aggression.
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  > many appear to be closet Putin supporter This is the eternal paradox of being anti-war: if you are advocating peace in a polarized situation you are essentially aiding and abetting the enemy. The anti-war movement really only has one window of opportunity: in a non- or low-polarized situation create strong trade ties, international agreements and intercultural understanding and hope that it can fetter the always active belligerents on all sides to a sufficient degree. When the polarization reaches a certain level (sufficient number of people killed or maimed on both sides and the killing frenzy rhetoric has taken hold) all we can do is go silent and watch as the world goes down in flames. The most realistic hope is likely that there is a new window of opportunity to build on thereafter when the horrific memories of war are still live in memory. But there is of course always a desperate, albeit likely unrealistic hope that people in charge will come to their senses before it is too late.
  - notthatmccarthy 4y ago
    > This is the eternal paradox of being anti-war: if you are advocating peace in a polarized situation you are essentially aiding and abetting the enemy. There is no such paradox. True patriots simply do not want their beloved countries to bloody their hands with the murder of foreign people. Not to mention with the total annihilation of the entire human race. Of course those who are opposed to the war should protest. "People in charge" don't just come to their senses. Democratic societies especially have mechanisms in place to ensure that there's no need to wait for anyone to come to their senses. If elected leaders are abusing their power to murder and destroy, those elected leaders can be replaced, legally and democratically and without much fuss. That there is fuss is only the result of those people clinging to power and not wanting to let go. But the rest of us should fight to take power away from their hands. We should not let mad, bloodthirsty assholes keep power. If you don't want your country to go to war, if you don't want your country to bomb foreign people, if you don't want your country to use its "nuclear deterrent" to start, or compound, a nuclear holocaust, then protest. Protest as if it was a very important thing, because it is a very damned important thing. And btw, this applies to Russians also. You're forgetting, in your "paradox", that a Russian anti-war movement exists and that its people protest and don't give a dime about "paradoxes". And they're not even citizens of a democratic country that makes special space for such protests in its legislation. They're persecuted and beaten up and put into jail. But they protest because there is no other way.

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago

> we will bring forth the apocalypse. This word is often misused. Are you still worried about someone bringing it forth, now that you know what it means? apocalypse (n.) late 14c., "revelation, disclosure," from Church Latin apocalypsis "revelation," from Greek apokalyptein "uncover, disclose, reveal," from apo "off, away from" (see apo-) + kalyptein "to cover, conceal" (from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save"). The Christian end-of-the-world story is part of the revelation in John of Patmos' book "Apokalypsis" (a title rendered into English as pocalipsis c. 1050, "Apocalypse" c. 1230, and "Revelation" by Wyclif c. 1380). https://www.etymonline.com/word/apocalypse#etymonline_v_15471 https://www.etymonline.com/word/apocalypse#etymonline_v_1547...

avgcorrection 4y ago
What’s the objection here?
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  I am not saying people are dumb for using the word, just that it is impercise, and there are better words, such as Armageddon, cataclysm, and holocaust. (The latter being specifically destruction by fire)
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    Apocalypse/Armageddon mean the same thing in normal talk. It doesn’t matter that one of them comes from “Mount of Megiddo”. If you want to be “smart” in your communication, being etymologically precise might not be what you want to do. If you use lower-h holocaust to describe nuclear <word for the end of the world as we know it> you are just inviting derailment of the conversation.
jleahy 4y ago
The word refers to the book of revelation, which describes war followed by famine and death. I would not say the word is being misused.

Silverback_VII 4y ago

Isn't it the same frenzy with which people advocated for lockdowns, masks and destroyed some peoples careers because they didn't want to take the shot? What I find inspiring is that billionaires like Musk are suddenly making moves to defuse the situation.

_visgean 4y ago
> like Musk are suddenly making moves to defuse the situation. he is parroting russian propaganda word for word. (and russia is also quoting him)
- brabel 4y ago
  Why do you think he's doing that? Because he's being paid by Russia? Or he's just a Russia lover? Or is there any chance that he just thinks that without compromises on both sides, the war will continue for a long time and nobody will benefit from that, specially no the Ukrainians themselves?
  - _visgean 4y ago
    my conspiracy theory is that he is acting full crazy in order to stop the twitter deal by scaring regulators in us and eu.
- cpursley 4y ago
  He's basically suggesting the Minsk agreements are followed and what a lot of other Western geopolitical experts are saying. What is your suggestion on how to handle the millions of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukranine? Ethnically cleanse them all?
  - _visgean 4y ago
    My suggestion? Let them live where they are.
    - deleted 4y ago

_visgean 4y ago

Who are you quoting? > we put our guy at its head a couple years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el... this is denying that ukraine has agency of its own. Nobody put a guy anywhere. He was elected. > we will bring forth the apocalypse. The only country that is threating 1st strike is Russia.

rjzzleep 4y ago
- _visgean 4y ago
  Here you go https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/30/putin-annexation-speech-more-angry-taxi-driver-than-head-of-state-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/30/putin-annexati... > literally begged NATO to do preemptive nuclear strikes against Russia 3 days ago he did not say that these strikes be nuclear https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/zelenskys-staff-forced-to-clarify-statement-after-president-suggests-preventive-strike-on-russia https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/zelenskys-staff-forced... but also it matters very little as UA has no nuclear weapons (because it gave them to russia for teritotial guarantees which turned out just great...)
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  It really doesn't make much sense to lookup Putin's speeches, because as became obvious over the last couple of months, as soon as he's opening his mouth, a lie comes out.
  - Normille 4y ago
    >It really doesn't make much sense to lookup Putin's speeches... It does if you're arguing not about whether what he said was true or not, but whether he eactually said what you're accusing him of saying. >as soon as he's opening his mouth, a lie comes out. So, just a regular politician, then. But wait! --It's like one of those logic puzzles then. So, if everything he says is a lie and he says he's goiung to use nuclear weapons... then that means he's NOT going to use nuclear weapons. Hurrah! --we're saved!

cm2187 4y ago

I am struggling with the alternative. So a dictator can invade any country he wants because otherwise he can say "booh, nuclear apocalypse" and because we can't risk to be anywhere near that, we need to give the dictator whatever he wants? And the invaded country has to swallow it? It's easy to write off other people's freedom. This map is very the reason why Putin's threats are empty threats. The US, UK and France have nukes pointed at every single major Russian city, and as far as I am aware, Putin cannot stop them if he were to decide to go that route. There is nothing in what he has done so far that seems to suggest he is either crazy, suicidal, or doesn't care about his mark on history.

Normille 4y ago
Logically then, you should approve of Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons. Because, otherwise, they might leave themselves open to invasion by some 'bully' [mentioning no names]. In fact, let's give every country in the world nuclear weapons. Then no-one will dare to attack anyone else and peace will reign everywhere.
hackerlight 4y ago
> we need to give the dictator whatever he wants Not whatever he wants. Some token prize that's big enough that he can protect his own ass domestically, but small enough that a re-run is obviously a bad idea. The big downside is future dictators realize that nuclear blackmail is a get out of jail free card, which increases future wars and nuclear proliferation.
jotm 4y ago
He's more like a typical 4chan/Reddit troll. Meaning he cares about his comfy life even though he wants much more in life (even though he's got a lot already, but humans often overlook what they have and want more).
einpoklum 4y ago
> So a dictator can invade any country he wants Let me guess: You live in the US. For most people in the world, the situation is that the US, and possibly some neighboring regional power, can invade whenever they want; and at best we can offer limited initial resistance and guerilla/terrorist attack once they've occupied. But "with food comes appetite": The US government has normalized, among its citizens, the presumption of military intervention where and when it likes. That is deplorable. What's worse, though, is that it can stretch the same trick as far as nuclear war. That is, most US'ers seem to be willing to risk the destruction of all humanity because " 'We' can't let the dictator-of-the-day invade this country we don't care about and can probably not even place on a map!"

marvin 4y ago

I have no idea who you are quoting. But bowing down to nuclear threats increases the chance of nuclear war. This is because it will cause more nuclear threats in the future, and also strongly incentivize most non-nuclear countries to acquire nuclear weapons. We currently see NATO provide very stern back-channel warnings against nuclear weapon use to Russia. This is deterrence, which again decreases the chance of nuclear weapon use. Similarly, providing military support to countries that are invaded decreases the risk of future invasions all over the world, since it makes the cost that much higher for someone who wants to achieve their goals by military force. We can all agree that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, and that the United States has made many such mistakes. But the current support for Ukraine's self defense is a completely different sort of situation, and has little to do with allegiance to any particular country. It does also support the USA's geopolitical interests as a side effect, which is why the US is so strongly involved, but the deterrence effect is the main reason it's important. It serves the same goal you're aiming towards -- long-term peace and trade, and ensuring nuclear weapons are never used.

chuckschnitzel 4y ago
"long-term peace and trade, and ensuring nuclear weapons are never used" is precisely and explicitly what the US nuclear arsenal is protecting: unrivalled power for the US with no foe capable of resisting it. For this goal they (just like Russia) are willing to risk the lives of millions, see https://critisticuffs.org/texts/ukraine-russia-usa https://critisticuffs.org/texts/ukraine-russia-usa and the quotes from US military doctrines referenced therein.
avgcorrection 4y ago
> We can all agree that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, and that the United States has made many such mistakes. Why was it a mistake? It’s unclear what “mistake” means.
- chaosbolt 4y ago
  >Why was it a mistake? It’s unclear what “mistake” means. Tbh killing a million civilians for oil isn't a mistake, a mistake is like when you make spelling mistakes or trip and fall because you miscalculated, killing a million civilians for oil is just a warcrime, then the US might go on and on about Japan not apologizing for Nanjing for example, or just do business with Saudi Arabia who stone (aka THROW STONES ON WOMEN UNTIL THEY DIE) or decapitate people for adultery or some other trivial thing, or even Israel and the textbook Apartheid they subjugate the Palestinians to. I'm saying this because I just got tired of the current narrative of the US playing the good guys and Putin being the bad guy, all politicians are bad guys, and seeing how the USSR disolved on the basis that NATO would not expand further, and it still did and now it has missiles stationed in Poland, and then the west backs a coup that resulted in Zelenskyy's predecessor then in Zelenskyy, I don't understand how that would be different as say Mexico or Canada having their government toppled by a Russian backed gov. And spare me the "nukes" are deterrent talk, a nuclear war can escalate in 1 hour and kill >99% of humans on the planet, I love my country and other European countries, but if you made me chose between losing a chunk of it or 99% of people in the world dying? Come on...

admissionsguy 4y ago

> except the one you invaded is at your borders and we put our guy at its head a couple years ago, and the one we invaded is half a planet from us I know neoconservatism went out of fashion after Iraq, but the US-dominated system thrives on making everyone freer and the world more open, and it's a good thing. Coup or no coup, expansion of the US sphere of influence is good, and expansion of the Russian influence is bad, it's that simple in my view as an Eastern European (as it is on the eyes of the vast majority of people liberated from the Soviet/Russian world).

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
Neoconservatism went out of fashion because the neocons pushed for wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East, and completely destroyed the region for nearly two decades (and counting). American actions during this period severely undermined the international legal order, violating prohibitions on wars of aggression, torture, and assassination.

risyachka 4y ago

So when some country invades the country you live in (you will be forced to stay there after invasion) and basically enslave all population, you will say, "Sure, I am fine with that, just don't start a nuclear war", right?

anovikov 4y ago

It's simply because the stocks of nuclear weapons are now so much smaller they can't bring nearly the end of the world. Plus, in 1960s many still lived under illusion that communism/dictatorship provided some viable alternative to evils of capitalism. Now it is too dead obvious they don't.

keewee7 4y ago

>and we put our guy at its head a couple years ago >we will bring forth the apocalypse Your comment is pushing Russian lies about the 2014 revolution in Ukraine and the only one bringing apocalypse closer is Russia. As a European with many Polish and Ukrainian friends and coworkers I'm happy that libertarian isolationist Americans only have a say on Hacker News and r/Conspiracy. The world would be a worse place if American libertarians had a say in foreign policy.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
the lie that the US was heavily involved in the coup?
- risyachka 4y ago
  There was no coup my friend. You weren't there and don't know how it all went but you feel free to call it a coup lol. I was there, my college friends were. And we all went because there of the shit that was going on. But it is too simple for conspirators so let's add some ruski propaganda and through in some coups and western puppeteers.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    People call it a "revolution" though, don't they? Is there really a substantial semantical difference, or is it purely a rhetorical way of using nicer words?

dandanua 4y ago

> Now bring in the downvotes because ... Cheap tactics. People will downvote you because you're saying lies and non-sense. 1. It's Russia started the genocidal war and it's Russia uses nuclear blackmail. 2. Ukrainian president was elected in 2019, no one appointed him. 3. Without nuclear deterrence Russia would already use nuclear strikes, because their army is good only in fighting unarmed civilians. 4. There is indeed a mass psychosis - in Russia. But "we" are normal people, we do care, and we are not dumb to see the threats.

warinukraine 4y ago

IAmGraydon 4y ago

>Humans are crazy, seeing how we're speaking about a nuclear war now vs how people spoke about it in the 60s, it's like a mass psychosis, we don't care anymore, or maybe we're too dumb to think about the horrors of something before living through it. I too believe there is some sort of mass psychosis going on. It started before Covid, but seems to have been massively compounded by it. It has its roots in a struggle for power, both national and individual. I think that people feel that their personal power has been taken away and that they have been oppressed through inequality and subjugation to authoritarian political policies. This has had the dual effect of creating a sense of hopelessness for their futures and the idea that there isn’t a future to live for. I think that for many individuals, the war against Russia is a proxy for their own struggles for personal power. They want to see authoritarianism lose because of their own struggle against it. If it doesn’t, what is there for them to live for? They’re willing to sacrifice all for it.