3 ms·

> The hell you aren't. "Neutrality" always favors the aggressor. And here, you are literally spreading Putin's rhetoric. Remember when George W. Bush gave his

by mikece 3y ago

> The hell you aren't. "Neutrality" always favors the aggressor. And here, you are literally spreading Putin's rhetoric. Remember when George W. Bush gave his famous "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" speech? Pretty much every media outlet cited this as a classic example of a false dichotomy, one that ignored that nuance could be found on both sides and ignored the possibility, common in a lot of the world, that honestly don't give a crap one way or the other. If the [insert whatever term you want for the kinetic action in Ukraine] didn't involve the very real possibility of escalating into nuclear war then a lot of the world won't care. We never cared when it was groups of non-white people slaughtering each other in Africa or southeast Asia: it's pretty freaking racist to assert that we need to care and pick sides now.

toss1 3y ago
>>Remember when George W. Bush gave his famous ... Yes, I do. Just because that instance may have been a false dichotomy does not mean that all such assertion are. In this case, we can literally look to 1: Russia's current tactics (systematic war crimes, targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure, systematic torture, rape, executions, harvesting children, etc.), 2: Russia's recent history (Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbas), 3: Russia's history over the last centuries of violent invasions and considering it's neighbors have no right to exist except under it's rule, 4: Russia's specific govt official's statements and statements of state-run media (Ukraine, Baltics, Poland have no right to exist, should be wiped out, etc. and open threats to all western nations), 5: Russia's open practice of asymmetric warfare fomenting divisions and fascist movements in democratic countries. The result is only that Russia is a clear and present danger to democracies. Allowing Russia to keep Ukraine's territory, and it's stolen children, and face no consequences for its systematic war crimes will only reward aggression AGAIN, and encourage it further. It is a 100% legitimate dichotomy. It is literally the way Russia itself sees the situation. You allow them to rape, pillage, plunder, and generally take what they want, or you are against them. For civilized people, you are either allowing it, or you are against it. Make the situation personal for you as it is for Ukarnaians. I'll invade your house, take over the bottom floor of your house, rape your daughter and wife, hold them hostage. Now, I demand to be able to stay. Do you think your neighbors and the cops and the courts should stay neutral? Who would that help? It sure as hell won't help get back your family and house. You are, similarly, supporting the aggressor. >>it's pretty freaking racist to assert that we need to care and pick sides now. No, it was pretty freaking racist to assert that they did NOT need help. And although this is closer to home and to our democracies, we absolutely should have been helping Chechnyia, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbas, etc. The fact is, that we likely did provide a bunch of covert help, and US troops are protecting the Kurdish part of Syria (and the Russian troops had a really bad day when they tried to screw w/ some US SpecOps guys), but it is not nearly as adequate as is being done in UKR, which is still inadequate and prolongs the torture and conflict. Also, helping in UKR DOES secondarily help everyone by deterring this sort of aggression, which is currently looming over Taiwan (and if you don't think Xi is watching very carefully about what to do next, I'd like to talk with you about buying some "great" oceanfront property in Kansas). >>escalating into nuclear war Yes, there is the threat of escalation. The ONLY way to deal with that threat is to counter it and fight. If we yield to this or any such nuclear blackmail, it is simply an open invitation to more nuclear blackmail. We literally might as well just give the keys to the White House to Putin immediately and get it over with. Plus, the fact is (based on public info only), that Russia has been warned of very immediate and severe consequences to even "harmless" threats (demonstration explosions, etc.), and their promptly behavior changed. They see what a bunch of motivated Ukranians using third-shelf inventory are doing to their military, and know that if the US and NATO get involved, their military's half-life will be measured in hours, and if they do anything real with nukes, their own lives are forefeit. They also can have only low confidence in their nuke arsenal even being usable, as rampant massive fraud and lack of maintenance is obvious in their military. So, yes, it is technically and rhetorically a threat, but in reality, it is not at all likely, especially in conventional actions on Ukranian territory, and NATO is being very explicit about keeping UKR fighting with one hand behind it's back and not venturing on Russian territory with our weapons.

by mikece 3y ago

toss1 3y ago

>>Remember when George W. Bush gave his famous ... Yes, I do. Just because that instance may have been a false dichotomy does not mean that all such assertion are. In this case, we can literally look to 1: Russia's current tactics (systematic war crimes, targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure, systematic torture, rape, executions, harvesting children, etc.), 2: Russia's recent history (Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbas), 3: Russia's history over the last centuries of violent invasions and considering it's neighbors have no right to exist except under it's rule, 4: Russia's specific govt official's statements and statements of state-run media (Ukraine, Baltics, Poland have no right to exist, should be wiped out, etc. and open threats to all western nations), 5: Russia's open practice of asymmetric warfare fomenting divisions and fascist movements in democratic countries. The result is only that Russia is a clear and present danger to democracies. Allowing Russia to keep Ukraine's territory, and it's stolen children, and face no consequences for its systematic war crimes will only reward aggression AGAIN, and encourage it further. It is a 100% legitimate dichotomy. It is literally the way Russia itself sees the situation. You allow them to rape, pillage, plunder, and generally take what they want, or you are against them. For civilized people, you are either allowing it, or you are against it. Make the situation personal for you as it is for Ukarnaians. I'll invade your house, take over the bottom floor of your house, rape your daughter and wife, hold them hostage. Now, I demand to be able to stay. Do you think your neighbors and the cops and the courts should stay neutral? Who would that help? It sure as hell won't help get back your family and house. You are, similarly, supporting the aggressor. >>it's pretty freaking racist to assert that we need to care and pick sides now. No, it was pretty freaking racist to assert that they did NOT need help. And although this is closer to home and to our democracies, we absolutely should have been helping Chechnyia, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbas, etc. The fact is, that we likely did provide a bunch of covert help, and US troops are protecting the Kurdish part of Syria (and the Russian troops had a really bad day when they tried to screw w/ some US SpecOps guys), but it is not nearly as adequate as is being done in UKR, which is still inadequate and prolongs the torture and conflict. Also, helping in UKR DOES secondarily help everyone by deterring this sort of aggression, which is currently looming over Taiwan (and if you don't think Xi is watching very carefully about what to do next, I'd like to talk with you about buying some "great" oceanfront property in Kansas). >>escalating into nuclear war Yes, there is the threat of escalation. The ONLY way to deal with that threat is to counter it and fight. If we yield to this or any such nuclear blackmail, it is simply an open invitation to more nuclear blackmail. We literally might as well just give the keys to the White House to Putin immediately and get it over with. Plus, the fact is (based on public info only), that Russia has been warned of very immediate and severe consequences to even "harmless" threats (demonstration explosions, etc.), and their promptly behavior changed. They see what a bunch of motivated Ukranians using third-shelf inventory are doing to their military, and know that if the US and NATO get involved, their military's half-life will be measured in hours, and if they do anything real with nukes, their own lives are forefeit. They also can have only low confidence in their nuke arsenal even being usable, as rampant massive fraud and lack of maintenance is obvious in their military. So, yes, it is technically and rhetorically a threat, but in reality, it is not at all likely, especially in conventional actions on Ukranian territory, and NATO is being very explicit about keeping UKR fighting with one hand behind it's back and not venturing on Russian territory with our weapons.