4 ms·

What analogy are you proposing with the Chamberlain thing? Are you mad the US hasn't declared war on Russia and worried that it is going to have dire consequen

What analogy are you proposing with the Chamberlain thing? Are you mad the US hasn't declared war on Russia and worried that it is going to have dire consequences for the US?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Are you mad the US hasn't declared war on Russia and worried that it is going to have dire consequences for the US? We've absolutely been slow rolling aid to Ukraine because the Biden White House bought Putin's bullshit. If we'd provided the weapons we're providing Kyiv with now at the outseet they would have been able to capitalise on the Russian army's lack of preparedness to draw frontlines much more advantageously, possibly even end the 'special operation' before it became entrenched.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  Have you thought to consider that the slowness in aiding Ukraine is a feature, not a bug?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Have you thought to consider that the slowness in aiding Ukraine is a feature, not a bug? Yes. Unless the goal is undermining American and NATO interests, it doesn't make sense. One could conclude from that corrupt motives. Hanlon's razor suggests a more parsimonious solution. (The same folks who were convinced Russia would be in Kyiv in weeks in '22, and then '23, and then '24 keep getting quoted as experts.)
  - type0 2y ago
    the feature to see as many Ukrainians dead as possible?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      And dead Russians. The longer the war goes, the better for the US and NATO. That's the whole reason it exists in the first place.
      - lovich 2y ago
        Pretty sure the war exists because Russia decided it wanted more land and resources. If you want to argue otherwise, I would need you to explain how Russia has no agency and is instead a weak puppet for everyone else. You cant have it both ways where Russia is a country that makes it own decisions, but also everything happening as a result of its actions, isn't their fault
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        there are numerous reasons and everyone has choices. I'm saying that the choices the US made were a major part of bringing about the war. It is 100% upside and the US would do it again. I think keeping NATO out of Ukraine would have been sufficient to avoid the whole conflict. That is without getting into more exotic options.
        lovich 2y ago
        > And dead Russians. The longer the war goes, the better for the US and NATO. That's the whole reason it exists in the first place. >> there are numerous reasons and everyone has choices >>> I'm saying that the choices the US made were a major part of bringing about the war. Would you like to either not lie outright, or(if I am being charitable) explain yourself fully in the first place? The comment I responded to from you, was saying that the whole reason the war in Ukraine existed was because it was better for NATO and the US. Walk that argument back, explain how you weren't nuanced enough in your original statement in the first place, or admit you're just pro Russia. I'll allow for another option I didn't enumerate, but you'll need to provide evidence for it
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      Why do you think NATO actually cares about Ukrainians dying? People are dying everywhere on the planet from war, famine, disease etc on a daily basis. Look at Gaza. What makes the Ukraine situation different or special loosing sleep over in NATO? If people in your country would be dying do you think other people in countries on the other side of the planet are gonna care enough to do anything radical about it? Of course not, they're gonna send some symbolic aid along with thoughts and prayers and that's it, you're still on your own to solve your problem. Nobody's gonna risk they're lives and livelihoods entering a conflict they have no skin in the game in unless there's something in it for them. If you were to give NATO member citizens a vote today whether they'd rather have cheap food, cheap energy and a pre-2022 economy, at the expense of Ukraine falling, a lot of people would gladly make that trade. People without luxury beliefs don't care about other people on the other side of the world if it means their own livelihoods have to suffer as a consequence, otherwise they wouldn't be buying 4$ shirts made by slaves in Bangladesh, or cheap coffee and bananas picked by slaves in LatAM, or electronics with cobalt mined by slaves in Africa. It might not be a popular fact to say or hear, but it's still a fact nonetheless, and pretending otherwise would be just virtue signaling.
fakedang 2y ago
Neville Chamberlain is widely looked down upon in the UK for inaction against Hitler (although one could also argue that he was buying time for the UK before it got into war economy mode). Joe Biden will be looked down upon in the future of having thrown away the presidency to a convicted criminal, in spite of all the cards being stacked in the Democratic party's favor early in the race. If Trump wins, this will be the watershed moment in history historians will look at (assuming Trump-Vance go through with Project 2025 and what they're actually campaigning, or even the general weakening of American hegemony that is to be expected - it already happened in Trump 1). Perhaps the Chamberlain analogy wasn't the right one here,but in my defence, I'm not American and not well-versed enough in American history to know if there was a past president who damaged the country by mere inaction, to draw parallels, although I think Buchanan and Andrew Johnson are (more severe) examples.

What analogy are you proposing with the Chamberlain thing? Are you mad the US hasn't declared war on Russia and worried that it is going to have dire consequences for the US?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Are you mad the US hasn't declared war on Russia and worried that it is going to have dire consequences for the US? We've absolutely been slow rolling aid to Ukraine because the Biden White House bought Putin's bullshit. If we'd provided the weapons we're providing Kyiv with now at the outseet they would have been able to capitalise on the Russian army's lack of preparedness to draw frontlines much more advantageously, possibly even end the 'special operation' before it became entrenched.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
Have you thought to consider that the slowness in aiding Ukraine is a feature, not a bug?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Have you thought to consider that the slowness in aiding Ukraine is a feature, not a bug? Yes. Unless the goal is undermining American and NATO interests, it doesn't make sense. One could conclude from that corrupt motives. Hanlon's razor suggests a more parsimonious solution. (The same folks who were convinced Russia would be in Kyiv in weeks in '22, and then '23, and then '24 keep getting quoted as experts.)
- type0 2y ago
  the feature to see as many Ukrainians dead as possible?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    And dead Russians. The longer the war goes, the better for the US and NATO. That's the whole reason it exists in the first place.
    - lovich 2y ago
      Pretty sure the war exists because Russia decided it wanted more land and resources. If you want to argue otherwise, I would need you to explain how Russia has no agency and is instead a weak puppet for everyone else. You cant have it both ways where Russia is a country that makes it own decisions, but also everything happening as a result of its actions, isn't their fault
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        there are numerous reasons and everyone has choices. I'm saying that the choices the US made were a major part of bringing about the war. It is 100% upside and the US would do it again. I think keeping NATO out of Ukraine would have been sufficient to avoid the whole conflict. That is without getting into more exotic options.
        lovich 2y ago
        > And dead Russians. The longer the war goes, the better for the US and NATO. That's the whole reason it exists in the first place. >> there are numerous reasons and everyone has choices >>> I'm saying that the choices the US made were a major part of bringing about the war. Would you like to either not lie outright, or(if I am being charitable) explain yourself fully in the first place? The comment I responded to from you, was saying that the whole reason the war in Ukraine existed was because it was better for NATO and the US. Walk that argument back, explain how you weren't nuanced enough in your original statement in the first place, or admit you're just pro Russia. I'll allow for another option I didn't enumerate, but you'll need to provide evidence for it
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    Why do you think NATO actually cares about Ukrainians dying? People are dying everywhere on the planet from war, famine, disease etc on a daily basis. Look at Gaza. What makes the Ukraine situation different or special loosing sleep over in NATO? If people in your country would be dying do you think other people in countries on the other side of the planet are gonna care enough to do anything radical about it? Of course not, they're gonna send some symbolic aid along with thoughts and prayers and that's it, you're still on your own to solve your problem. Nobody's gonna risk they're lives and livelihoods entering a conflict they have no skin in the game in unless there's something in it for them. If you were to give NATO member citizens a vote today whether they'd rather have cheap food, cheap energy and a pre-2022 economy, at the expense of Ukraine falling, a lot of people would gladly make that trade. People without luxury beliefs don't care about other people on the other side of the world if it means their own livelihoods have to suffer as a consequence, otherwise they wouldn't be buying 4$ shirts made by slaves in Bangladesh, or cheap coffee and bananas picked by slaves in LatAM, or electronics with cobalt mined by slaves in Africa. It might not be a popular fact to say or hear, but it's still a fact nonetheless, and pretending otherwise would be just virtue signaling.

fakedang 2y ago

Neville Chamberlain is widely looked down upon in the UK for inaction against Hitler (although one could also argue that he was buying time for the UK before it got into war economy mode). Joe Biden will be looked down upon in the future of having thrown away the presidency to a convicted criminal, in spite of all the cards being stacked in the Democratic party's favor early in the race. If Trump wins, this will be the watershed moment in history historians will look at (assuming Trump-Vance go through with Project 2025 and what they're actually campaigning, or even the general weakening of American hegemony that is to be expected - it already happened in Trump 1). Perhaps the Chamberlain analogy wasn't the right one here,but in my defence, I'm not American and not well-versed enough in American history to know if there was a past president who damaged the country by mere inaction, to draw parallels, although I think Buchanan and Andrew Johnson are (more severe) examples.