7 ms·

> And also why wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers is extremely foolish and should be stopped with great urgency. The strict interpretation of that forei

> And also why wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers is extremely foolish and should be stopped with great urgency. The strict interpretation of that foreign policy is that any nuclear nation is free to invade any non-nuclear nation and abuse its citizens. Where do you draw the line? If for example an ally is invaded by a nuclear nation. Should you intervene or just call peace? Does the rule-of-law between countries have any relevance?

cynicalpeace 2y ago
You're claiming "wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers" are not "extremely foolish" and should not "be stopped with great urgency"?
- fifilura 2y ago
  Yes but how? Obviously the invader is not going to stop the war and say "this was foolish". So it is up to all other nations to bow down and let them have their piece of the world.
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - fifilura 2y ago
      I am not talking about any conflict in particular. I am just pointing out that this is the consequence of that kind of policy. The world is not black and white. And that also gives you the right to choose what part of the grayscale you want to be, good on you!
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        You have stated you agree that wars between nuclear powers are extremely foolish. It's difficult to say how you can stop such wars if you don't know what the war is.
        fifilura 2y ago
        It was you who said that.
        cynicalpeace 2y ago
        You responded “Yes but how?” to my question. Did I misunderstand and you meant wars between nuclear powers is not foolish?
        fifilura 2y ago
        Yes. I am sorry but you missed the second part of the post and then proceeded with putting words in my mouth.
        anigbrowl 2y ago
        Can you please stop with these tacky rhetorical moves, it's inimical to good conversation.
        cynicalpeace 2y ago
        It was a genuine question. When you start getting attacked personally, you know whoever's attacking you is losing the argument.
        anigbrowl 2y ago
        I don't believe you. Virtually every contribution you've made in this thread is manipulative, including this one. Making specific but evidence-free allegations and then leaning on aphorisms to keep the argument going is an obvious and unfortunately common pattern in your social activity here.
    - bspammer 2y ago
      The candidate I assume you’re voting for increased the future nuclear threat last time he was in office by pulling out of the Iran deal, for no good reason at all. He’s also one of the most jingoistic people in politics.
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        A lot less war under his admin than now. And I voted for the current admin. He's more jingoistic than Dick Cheney?
        bspammer 2y ago
        He’s certainly more jingoistic than Harris, as his slogans and supporters make evident.
        EasyMark 2y ago
        not to mention fact checkers are often overwhelmed after just one speech of his there are so many lies and exaggerations. He is a narcissistic grifter that became a cult leader.
        cynicalpeace 2y ago
        You're describing me in this comment thread right now. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of political bias. At least Trump's lies have killed less people than Victoria Nuland's
        fifilura 2y ago
        You who brought the 2024 election into the thread.
    - piva00 2y ago
      Can we think on the next step then? A nuclear nation invades and annexes territories from a non-nuclear one, given the premise to avoid wars between nuclear powers by proxy it means that a nuclear nation can then invade and annex anything in their surroundings with little repercussion, since we want to avoid any escalation towards nuclear powers at war. They settle for peace, the nuclear power gets what they want, stops for a while to re-arm, and then pushes to another non-nuclear nation. What would stop other nations from pursuing their own nukes if that's the case? It also would make any military alliance such as NATO moot, there are only 3 nuclear powers in the alliance, any other country in the alliance which gets invaded by a nuclear power wouldn't be able to call for help since we want to avoid nuclear confrontation. This only spirals more and more, countries without nukes are at a massive disadvantage, they will naturally seek nukes to protect themselves, just increasing the odds that a nuclear exchange will happen by sheer statistics. > This is why I will be voting for the candidate who was not endorsed by Dick Cheney. Proving my point that you don't think very rationally at all.
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        You're claiming a compromised peace in the Donbas could spiral into a nuclear exchange. I'm claiming that continuing the proxy war between a jingoistic US government and a (probably) jingoistic Russian government could spiral into a nuclear exchange, and that the US government should be less jingoistic. Being jingoistic doesn't reduce the chance of nuclear war. I doubt we're going to convince each other, so I would challenge readers of the two claims to decide for themselves what makes more sense for preventing nuclear armageddon.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        It's a classic short-term vs long-term tradeoff. Letting Russia get away with an invasion of Ukraine decreases the risk of a nuclear war in the next couple of years but increases it in the following decades. I personally believe the long-term thinkers have the better argument
        cynicalpeace 2y ago
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      I don't know if the Russians are just as jingoistic and corrupt, Short story: current regime in the Russian Federation quite definitely is, may more so in fact, and has fascist, revanchist, genocidal ideology to boot. You may want to look further into its history (and that of the Russian/Soviet empires, which it sees itself as the natural successor to), and into the writings/thinking of the folks the helm of that regime in more detail sometime. Sabotaging negotiations in Turkey That's a myth, as you will easy verify for yourself by doing adequate research into the topic. Forget about Dick Cheney. Instead look into who's been drip-feeding you false narratives like the above, and why.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        "way more so"
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        It is absolutely true. Davyd Arakhhamia, Ukraine’s chief negotiator at Istanbul, said "[Boris] Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the NATO powers] are not" We've all been drip-fed by the military industrial complex since at least 9/11 that war is necessary. Look what it got us- millions dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza. Not to mention our countless soldiers killed and injured on the line of duty. It's evil, no I will not forget Dick Cheney.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Except that's not a direct quote from Arakhmiya - now is it? Rather, it's a characterization of what he said -- whose original provenance seems to be difficult to track down, and there are conflicting versions available, which of course got copy-pasted all over in both left- and right-wing outlets (as well as by the Kremlin of course). But both Johnson and Arakhmiya have strenuously denied this characterization in any case, when directly asked about the topic: “This is nothing more than nonsense and Russian propaganda,” Johnson said in an interview with the Times. His words were confirmed by the head of the pro-presidential Servant of the People party faction, David Arakhamia, who headed the Ukrainian delegation at the Ukraine-Russia talks in Istanbul in March 2022. ... Arakhamia denied that the Ukrainian delegation was allegedly ready to sign such a document, and Johnson stopped Kyiv. And yet somehow you've come to believe that the first characterization you came across was "absolutely true". Why is that? It's evil, no I will not forget Dick Cheney. You can build an anti-shrine to him on your bedroom wall, and throw darts at it every night if you want to. The unfortunate point here is that it seems you've allowed him to become a bogeyman, just like the big bad old MIC. And when I'm saying "forget about him", I don't mean in the literal sense. Of course we have to remember assholes like Cheney and the evil they did, what Eisenhower said way back when and all that. But the bigger point is: that doesn't mean we have to let these ghosts not only dictate our narratives, but completely override our understanding of events in the present moment. More to the point -- if you'd like to yourself a huge favor, and just forget about all these good/evil narratives altogether. Instead focus on the facts of who said what, and when, and what really happened as a result. Which in the case of the current Ukraine war, really aren't that complicated or hard to figure out.
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      literally all the Russians have to do is stop and go back home and the war is over. they will never do that because they elected a President who is named Putin and now he has a Hitleresque dream of taking all the old Soviet vassal states back. He is the one doing this and he is the one you will have to convince to stop; although I am sure there are plenty of yes men that he has attracted to his orbit to support his crazed dream of Soviet restoration
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        Correct. Russians should absolutely go home. You're pushing forward a neoliberal wet dream that he wants the whole eastern bloc.

cynicalpeace 2y ago

You're claiming "wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers" are not "extremely foolish" and should not "be stopped with great urgency"?

fifilura 2y ago
Yes but how? Obviously the invader is not going to stop the war and say "this was foolish". So it is up to all other nations to bow down and let them have their piece of the world.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - fifilura 2y ago
    I am not talking about any conflict in particular. I am just pointing out that this is the consequence of that kind of policy. The world is not black and white. And that also gives you the right to choose what part of the grayscale you want to be, good on you!
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      You have stated you agree that wars between nuclear powers are extremely foolish. It's difficult to say how you can stop such wars if you don't know what the war is.
      - fifilura 2y ago
        It was you who said that.
        cynicalpeace 2y ago
        You responded “Yes but how?” to my question. Did I misunderstand and you meant wars between nuclear powers is not foolish?
        fifilura 2y ago
        Yes. I am sorry but you missed the second part of the post and then proceeded with putting words in my mouth.
        anigbrowl 2y ago
        Can you please stop with these tacky rhetorical moves, it's inimical to good conversation.
        cynicalpeace 2y ago
        It was a genuine question. When you start getting attacked personally, you know whoever's attacking you is losing the argument.
        anigbrowl 2y ago
        I don't believe you. Virtually every contribution you've made in this thread is manipulative, including this one. Making specific but evidence-free allegations and then leaning on aphorisms to keep the argument going is an obvious and unfortunately common pattern in your social activity here.
  - bspammer 2y ago
    The candidate I assume you’re voting for increased the future nuclear threat last time he was in office by pulling out of the Iran deal, for no good reason at all. He’s also one of the most jingoistic people in politics.
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      A lot less war under his admin than now. And I voted for the current admin. He's more jingoistic than Dick Cheney?
      - bspammer 2y ago
        He’s certainly more jingoistic than Harris, as his slogans and supporters make evident.
        EasyMark 2y ago
        not to mention fact checkers are often overwhelmed after just one speech of his there are so many lies and exaggerations. He is a narcissistic grifter that became a cult leader.
        cynicalpeace 2y ago
        You're describing me in this comment thread right now. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of political bias. At least Trump's lies have killed less people than Victoria Nuland's
        fifilura 2y ago
        You who brought the 2024 election into the thread.
  - piva00 2y ago
    Can we think on the next step then? A nuclear nation invades and annexes territories from a non-nuclear one, given the premise to avoid wars between nuclear powers by proxy it means that a nuclear nation can then invade and annex anything in their surroundings with little repercussion, since we want to avoid any escalation towards nuclear powers at war. They settle for peace, the nuclear power gets what they want, stops for a while to re-arm, and then pushes to another non-nuclear nation. What would stop other nations from pursuing their own nukes if that's the case? It also would make any military alliance such as NATO moot, there are only 3 nuclear powers in the alliance, any other country in the alliance which gets invaded by a nuclear power wouldn't be able to call for help since we want to avoid nuclear confrontation. This only spirals more and more, countries without nukes are at a massive disadvantage, they will naturally seek nukes to protect themselves, just increasing the odds that a nuclear exchange will happen by sheer statistics. > This is why I will be voting for the candidate who was not endorsed by Dick Cheney. Proving my point that you don't think very rationally at all.
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      You're claiming a compromised peace in the Donbas could spiral into a nuclear exchange. I'm claiming that continuing the proxy war between a jingoistic US government and a (probably) jingoistic Russian government could spiral into a nuclear exchange, and that the US government should be less jingoistic. Being jingoistic doesn't reduce the chance of nuclear war. I doubt we're going to convince each other, so I would challenge readers of the two claims to decide for themselves what makes more sense for preventing nuclear armageddon.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        It's a classic short-term vs long-term tradeoff. Letting Russia get away with an invasion of Ukraine decreases the risk of a nuclear war in the next couple of years but increases it in the following decades. I personally believe the long-term thinkers have the better argument
        cynicalpeace 2y ago
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    I don't know if the Russians are just as jingoistic and corrupt, Short story: current regime in the Russian Federation quite definitely is, may more so in fact, and has fascist, revanchist, genocidal ideology to boot. You may want to look further into its history (and that of the Russian/Soviet empires, which it sees itself as the natural successor to), and into the writings/thinking of the folks the helm of that regime in more detail sometime. Sabotaging negotiations in Turkey That's a myth, as you will easy verify for yourself by doing adequate research into the topic. Forget about Dick Cheney. Instead look into who's been drip-feeding you false narratives like the above, and why.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      "way more so"
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      It is absolutely true. Davyd Arakhhamia, Ukraine’s chief negotiator at Istanbul, said "[Boris] Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the NATO powers] are not" We've all been drip-fed by the military industrial complex since at least 9/11 that war is necessary. Look what it got us- millions dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza. Not to mention our countless soldiers killed and injured on the line of duty. It's evil, no I will not forget Dick Cheney.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Except that's not a direct quote from Arakhmiya - now is it? Rather, it's a characterization of what he said -- whose original provenance seems to be difficult to track down, and there are conflicting versions available, which of course got copy-pasted all over in both left- and right-wing outlets (as well as by the Kremlin of course). But both Johnson and Arakhmiya have strenuously denied this characterization in any case, when directly asked about the topic: “This is nothing more than nonsense and Russian propaganda,” Johnson said in an interview with the Times. His words were confirmed by the head of the pro-presidential Servant of the People party faction, David Arakhamia, who headed the Ukrainian delegation at the Ukraine-Russia talks in Istanbul in March 2022. ... Arakhamia denied that the Ukrainian delegation was allegedly ready to sign such a document, and Johnson stopped Kyiv. And yet somehow you've come to believe that the first characterization you came across was "absolutely true". Why is that? It's evil, no I will not forget Dick Cheney. You can build an anti-shrine to him on your bedroom wall, and throw darts at it every night if you want to. The unfortunate point here is that it seems you've allowed him to become a bogeyman, just like the big bad old MIC. And when I'm saying "forget about him", I don't mean in the literal sense. Of course we have to remember assholes like Cheney and the evil they did, what Eisenhower said way back when and all that. But the bigger point is: that doesn't mean we have to let these ghosts not only dictate our narratives, but completely override our understanding of events in the present moment. More to the point -- if you'd like to yourself a huge favor, and just forget about all these good/evil narratives altogether. Instead focus on the facts of who said what, and when, and what really happened as a result. Which in the case of the current Ukraine war, really aren't that complicated or hard to figure out.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    literally all the Russians have to do is stop and go back home and the war is over. they will never do that because they elected a President who is named Putin and now he has a Hitleresque dream of taking all the old Soviet vassal states back. He is the one doing this and he is the one you will have to convince to stop; although I am sure there are plenty of yes men that he has attracted to his orbit to support his crazed dream of Soviet restoration
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      Correct. Russians should absolutely go home. You're pushing forward a neoliberal wet dream that he wants the whole eastern bloc.