4 ms·

Any compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to an end. We basically have a WW1 situation where both sides are grinding themselves down and the only thin

by Dig1t 2y ago

Any compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to an end. We basically have a WW1 situation where both sides are grinding themselves down and the only thing the left can bring themselves to support is continuing the conflict. Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. This is a good hint that you MIGHT not be on the good guys team as much as you think you are.

JohnBooty 2y ago
This also puts you on the same side as Neville Chamberlain, so. There are a lot of bad people who espoused war in the past. There are also a lot of bad people who ran from war and appeased the Hitlers of the world, although many of their names did not survive because they weren't around afterward to write the histories. We tried doing literally nothing when Russia invaded Georgia, and we tried doing basically nothing when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. How did that work out? He invaded another god damned country. He really thought it was going to be a three-day operation; he thought he was going to be welcomed in Kiev. Should we have done nothing, forever?
ceejayoz 2y ago
> Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. Just think for a sec, if AOC and Dick Cheney can agree "person X is horrible", there's a good chance that person is horrible.
terribleperson 2y ago
The position "any compromise that ends the war is acceptable" is a nonsensical idea that gives agressors the ability to take any territory they want from weaker nations. Invade weaker nation, take some land, then force them to surrender to 'save lives'. Do you not see where this absolutist idea leads? If the only thing that matters is saving lives, you can have whatever you want by taking lives. The end result is that people who are willing to kill for profit win. If you don't want the world to be ruled by people willing to kill for profit, you have to take action to make that behavior unprofitable.
vel0city 2y ago
My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time We did appeasement in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea. Totally solved the problem didn't it. Just like Chamberlain prevented the meat grinder of WWII.
- cthaeh 2y ago
  [dead]
throw0101d 2y ago
> Any compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to an end. Which would entail trusting the US and Russia. Under Trump the US signed a trade deal with MX and CA and is now going after them. So why trust Trump? And why would you trust Russia when their goal is to wipe UA from the map?
matthewmacleod 2y ago
Star Trek DS9 episode 6x05 “What could be better? An ally and an enemy both telling him the same thing; he'll have no other choice but to agree!” If both Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders are allied against someone, they’re probably bad news. I appreciate I’m oversimplifying and ignoring the realpolitik, but the fastest way to end the war is to mercilessly crush the aggressor state that invaded and annexed a sovereign nation twice. The mistake of both the US and the EU was to be far, far too timid in their responses to an obvious existential threat.
mcv 2y ago
> Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. That's a fallacy. It might be true if Dick Cheney said or did something controversial that everybody disagrees with, like initiate a completely unnecessary war with Iraq. But in this case, everybody across the political spectrum who understands the situation and its context, agrees that it is vital to defend Ukraine. Answer me this: do you think that in WW2, everybody should just have surrendered to Germany and Japan in order to bring the war to a quick end? Would that have been better than 5 years of destruction?
- Dig1t 2y ago
  I don’t think it’s a fallacy at all. Being on the same team as a famous warmonger when it comes to choosing whether or not to continue funding an endless war is a decent HINT. It should make you take a step back and really examine all the evidence about whether you’re actually on the right side of history (you’re probably not). This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2. In that conflict both sides basically came to standstill, lines were drawn in the dirt and millions on lives were lost for literally no reason. If the leaders of the countries involved had been able to recognize that years of slaughter had bought them nothing and negotiate a peaceful compromise then so many lives could have been saved. PLUS that likely would have prevented WW2 from even happening. This is also a proxy war between the US and Russia, Ukraine would have been conquered immediately by Russia without US aid. We have the ability to force a peace and we should be trying to do so not only because we’re spending a lot of money on it but because we are perpetuating a horrific slaughter of millions of people.
  - mcv 2y ago
    No, it's still a fallacy. Sure, taking a step back and examining the evidence is always a good idea, but the evidence is pretty damn clear here. > This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2. Only tactically. Both WW2 and this war were initiated by a single aggressor starting multiple wars in a row. WW1 by contrast had lots of countries equally itching for a fight, even countries that had nothing to do with the initial trigger. And assassination in Sarajevo should not logically lead to endless trench warfare in Flanders. But in Russia's invasion, everybody else is really careful to keep the fighting contained to just Ukraine.
alabastervlog 2y ago
Russia broke the last ceasefire. Another ceasefire without material guarantees of security for Ukraine is pointless for Ukraine to sign, as there's no reason to believe it'll "bring the meat grinder to an end". Which is exactly what Zelenskyy was trying to say, when they kept shouting over him. And what at least one reporter asked about, which question Trump then dodged.
pjc50 2y ago
How do you stop the Russians continuing a one sided murder campaign after the surrender?
- collingreen 2y ago
  Give them whatever they want, again, I suppose! That's the only conclusion possible from a policy of "any compromise to end the killing".
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  Bingo. The only way to stop Russia killing people is for them to lose the war.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
collingreen 2y ago
I'm not sure ad hominem is as convincing as you think it is. "Any compromise at all" is a very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets.
- Dig1t 2y ago
  Ad hominem: “Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.” I said aligning yourself with a famous war monger is a good hint that you may not be a good guy and that it is a good reason for reflection. I did not attack OP’s character or motivations. >very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets. Likewise it is even more easy to be cavalier about continuing to fund a war and depopulating entire nations when you’re not the one being conscripted to fight and die. It’s easy to be a war monger when you’re not the one doing the dying.

by Dig1t 2y ago

JohnBooty 2y ago

This also puts you on the same side as Neville Chamberlain, so. There are a lot of bad people who espoused war in the past. There are also a lot of bad people who ran from war and appeased the Hitlers of the world, although many of their names did not survive because they weren't around afterward to write the histories. We tried doing literally nothing when Russia invaded Georgia, and we tried doing basically nothing when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. How did that work out? He invaded another god damned country. He really thought it was going to be a three-day operation; he thought he was going to be welcomed in Kiev. Should we have done nothing, forever?

ceejayoz 2y ago

> Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. Just think for a sec, if AOC and Dick Cheney can agree "person X is horrible", there's a good chance that person is horrible.

terribleperson 2y ago

The position "any compromise that ends the war is acceptable" is a nonsensical idea that gives agressors the ability to take any territory they want from weaker nations. Invade weaker nation, take some land, then force them to surrender to 'save lives'. Do you not see where this absolutist idea leads? If the only thing that matters is saving lives, you can have whatever you want by taking lives. The end result is that people who are willing to kill for profit win. If you don't want the world to be ruled by people willing to kill for profit, you have to take action to make that behavior unprofitable.

vel0city 2y ago

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time We did appeasement in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea. Totally solved the problem didn't it. Just like Chamberlain prevented the meat grinder of WWII.

cthaeh 2y ago
[dead]

throw0101d 2y ago

> Any compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to an end. Which would entail trusting the US and Russia. Under Trump the US signed a trade deal with MX and CA and is now going after them. So why trust Trump? And why would you trust Russia when their goal is to wipe UA from the map?

matthewmacleod 2y ago

Star Trek DS9 episode 6x05 “What could be better? An ally and an enemy both telling him the same thing; he'll have no other choice but to agree!” If both Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders are allied against someone, they’re probably bad news. I appreciate I’m oversimplifying and ignoring the realpolitik, but the fastest way to end the war is to mercilessly crush the aggressor state that invaded and annexed a sovereign nation twice. The mistake of both the US and the EU was to be far, far too timid in their responses to an obvious existential threat.

mcv 2y ago

> Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. That's a fallacy. It might be true if Dick Cheney said or did something controversial that everybody disagrees with, like initiate a completely unnecessary war with Iraq. But in this case, everybody across the political spectrum who understands the situation and its context, agrees that it is vital to defend Ukraine. Answer me this: do you think that in WW2, everybody should just have surrendered to Germany and Japan in order to bring the war to a quick end? Would that have been better than 5 years of destruction?

Dig1t 2y ago
I don’t think it’s a fallacy at all. Being on the same team as a famous warmonger when it comes to choosing whether or not to continue funding an endless war is a decent HINT. It should make you take a step back and really examine all the evidence about whether you’re actually on the right side of history (you’re probably not). This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2. In that conflict both sides basically came to standstill, lines were drawn in the dirt and millions on lives were lost for literally no reason. If the leaders of the countries involved had been able to recognize that years of slaughter had bought them nothing and negotiate a peaceful compromise then so many lives could have been saved. PLUS that likely would have prevented WW2 from even happening. This is also a proxy war between the US and Russia, Ukraine would have been conquered immediately by Russia without US aid. We have the ability to force a peace and we should be trying to do so not only because we’re spending a lot of money on it but because we are perpetuating a horrific slaughter of millions of people.
- mcv 2y ago
  No, it's still a fallacy. Sure, taking a step back and examining the evidence is always a good idea, but the evidence is pretty damn clear here. > This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2. Only tactically. Both WW2 and this war were initiated by a single aggressor starting multiple wars in a row. WW1 by contrast had lots of countries equally itching for a fight, even countries that had nothing to do with the initial trigger. And assassination in Sarajevo should not logically lead to endless trench warfare in Flanders. But in Russia's invasion, everybody else is really careful to keep the fighting contained to just Ukraine.

alabastervlog 2y ago

Russia broke the last ceasefire. Another ceasefire without material guarantees of security for Ukraine is pointless for Ukraine to sign, as there's no reason to believe it'll "bring the meat grinder to an end". Which is exactly what Zelenskyy was trying to say, when they kept shouting over him. And what at least one reporter asked about, which question Trump then dodged.

pjc50 2y ago

How do you stop the Russians continuing a one sided murder campaign after the surrender?

collingreen 2y ago
Give them whatever they want, again, I suppose! That's the only conclusion possible from a policy of "any compromise to end the killing".
throwawayq3423 2y ago
Bingo. The only way to stop Russia killing people is for them to lose the war.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

collingreen 2y ago

I'm not sure ad hominem is as convincing as you think it is. "Any compromise at all" is a very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets.

Dig1t 2y ago
Ad hominem: “Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.” I said aligning yourself with a famous war monger is a good hint that you may not be a good guy and that it is a good reason for reflection. I did not attack OP’s character or motivations. >very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets. Likewise it is even more easy to be cavalier about continuing to fund a war and depopulating entire nations when you’re not the one being conscripted to fight and die. It’s easy to be a war monger when you’re not the one doing the dying.