6 ms·
It's funny you're phrasing it this way, because none of the "peace movements" can answer the most simple question: How do you ensure peace after whatever treaty
by Timon3 3y ago
It's funny you're phrasing it this way, because none of the "peace movements" can answer the most simple question: How do you ensure peace after whatever treaty you're putting in to "bring peace"? If Russia wins literally anything, even a single square meter, why would they not start the next war in a couple of years? Or will you then stop "calling for peace" yourself?
- masswerk 3y agoAnd the only way to sort this out is by fighting to the bitter end, until either of the two biggest countries in Europe runs out of men? (This, BTW, may take some time, while we're maximizing casualties.)
- Timon3 3y agoThe only way to sort this out is for the aggressor to stop invading the other country - to actually restore peace. Seems pretty simple, no?
- masswerk 3y agoForce an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty simple.
- Timon3 3y agoWell, surely you saw this coming, but I'll ask my previous question: how do you guarantee peace after the armstice? Why shouldn't Russia attempt the same thing again in a couple of years, since the war would have netted them territory (you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory)?
- masswerk 3y ago> you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory) You are aware, you are implying things. (By the same means I could suppose you want the invasion to succeed a 500K dead later, since you weren't ruling out this chance explicitly.)
- Timon3 3y agoNo, I'm not. You have mentioned an armistice and nothing further. Does your solution have more than just that? If not, how do you resolve my question?
- masswerk 3y agoAnd you haven't mentioned anything that guarantees a specific outcome of the conflict.
- Dylan16807 3y agoNobody can guarantee a specific outcome to the conflict. Back to the conversation that was happening, it was about hypothetical peace treaties. Are you going to answer the question about your suggested treaty? It was a reasonable question based on your phrasing and you're deflecting. It wasn't some kind of made up gotcha, like your deflection was. And if you won't answer it then you've gone from conversation to trolling.
- masswerk 3y agoSo, to stick to the conversation, how is this different from the demand to know or guarantee the outcome of a political process beforehand? However, I'm not here to discuss specific politics, just principles of reasoning.
- Timon3 3y agoI guess I'll just add one to the number of "people who say they want peace, but can't answer the most simple question about keeping peace". One day I'll receive an answer, I'm sure!
- wzdd 3y agoMaking peace by allowing an aggressor to expand their territory is called appeasement, and there are historical reasons why people are reluctant to do it: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-wa...
- masswerk 3y agoYou are aware, that H. was actually disappointed that he didn't get what he wanted, namely war? (France and the UK would have missed on getting an entire cycle of the arms race into the field.)