Let’s have a war!

[Shirley]

This can't be good

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/26/poli ... index.html

If I understand you 99, you're saying

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity?"

[Shirley]

Earlier today, October 27, 2023, two US Air Force F-16s struck a weapons storage facility used by militants linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps or IRGC. The strikes, which took place near Boukamal in eastern Syria, were in response to the 19 attacks on U.S. bases and personnel in Iraq and Syria since Oct. 17, including three new ones yesterday. Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said 21 U.S. personnel were injured in two of those assaults that used Iranian-supplied drones to target American military bases in Iraq and Syria.

Deep Intel on the US F-16 Strike into Syria

[KUTradition]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... e-00123352

… Official accounts of Russian expansion suggest that Russia simply agglomerated neighboring peoples as part of its defensive acquisition of territory, happily gathering new peoples and new lands into Moscow’s embrace. In Russia’s telling, the word “colonialism” applies to only other empires, not to the Russian one. As Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently claimed, Russia has “not stained itself with the bloody crimes of colonialism.”…

[Shirley]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... e-00123352

… Official accounts of Russian expansion suggest that Russia simply agglomerated neighboring peoples as part of its defensive acquisition of territory, happily gathering new peoples and new lands into Moscow’s embrace. In Russia’s telling, the word “colonialism” applies to only other empires, not to the Russian one. As Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently claimed, Russia has “not stained itself with the bloody crimes of colonialism.”…

Humbling to learn that after considering them the bad guys for so long.

[KUTradition]

… And it is that “manifest destiny” that now plays out in Ukraine. As Putin has claimed, Russia is not simply another nation, but is a “state-civilization” that, as analyst Andrei Kolesnikov wrote last year, has “a special path” laid before it, all part of the Russia’s “thousand-year history.” (As Lavrov reportedly said, Putin “has three advisers: Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great.”)

And that status as a supposed “state-civilization” means that Russia has a right — or a destiny, if you will — to absorb and dominate its former imperial holdings. Putin repeatedly insists Russia must be recognized as a “great power.” But that formulation by definition means Russia must be dominant over other peoples and exercise power over a range of other nations. Per Putin’s logic, Russia cannot be a great power without “subject” nations that prove its dominance. And so Ukraine — arguably its oldest, as well as geographically and culturally closest, colony — could not be allowed to escape Moscow’s grasp...

[ousdahl]

Oh right on. With all the fuss in the Israel/Palestine thread I was starting to wonder if folks forgot about Ukraine.

Now, manifest destiny….where have we heard that before?

Once again, the issue isn’t violent imperial expansion in itself, so just as it is violent imperial expansion when anyone else does it.

[jfish26]

Oh right on. With all the fuss in the Israel/Palestine thread I was starting to wonder if folks forgot about Ukraine.

Now, manifest destiny….where have we heard that before?

Once again, the issue isn’t violent imperial expansion in itself, so just as it is violent imperial expansion when anyone else does it.

Once again: what would you have the US do? Abandon Ukraine, and put our other allies and interests in jeopardy, by putting ourselves in timeout for things the United States did centuries ago now?

[KUTradition]

too bad he didn’t read the article before spouting off

par for the course

[ousdahl]

Oh right on. With all the fuss in the Israel/Palestine thread I was starting to wonder if folks forgot about Ukraine.

Now, manifest destiny….where have we heard that before?

Once again, the issue isn’t violent imperial expansion in itself, so just as it is violent imperial expansion when anyone else does it.

Once again: what would you have the US do? Abandon Ukraine, and put our other allies and interests in jeopardy, by putting ourselves in timeout for things the United States did centuries ago now?

Once again: maybe the US could just admit we do it too? And on some objective level, it’s just not much different?

And not even centuries ago bro, this shit happens in real time!

Ever heard of the Israel/Palestine thread?

Heck, maybe we could admit that using Ukraine as a pawn to aggressively expand our own military footprint right up to Putin’s doorstep, then when telling Putin to pound sand when he tried for a diplomatic resolution, is a big part of why Putin invaded Ukraine?

And that’s not meant as a justification for Putin invading Ukraine! It’s just context here, whether you’re willing or able to consider it or not.

[jfish26]

Oh right on. With all the fuss in the Israel/Palestine thread I was starting to wonder if folks forgot about Ukraine.

Now, manifest destiny….where have we heard that before?

Once again, the issue isn’t violent imperial expansion in itself, so just as it is violent imperial expansion when anyone else does it.

Once again: what would you have the US do? Abandon Ukraine, and put our other allies and interests in jeopardy, by putting ourselves in timeout for things the United States did centuries ago now?

Once again: maybe the US could just admit we do it too? And on some objective level, it’s just not much different?

And not even centuries ago bro, this shit happens in real time!

Ever heard of the Israel/Palestine thread?

Heck, maybe we could admit that using Ukraine as a pawn to aggressively expand our own military footprint right up to Putin’s doorstep, then when telling Putin to pound sand when he tried for a diplomatic resolution, is a big part of why Putin invaded Ukraine?

And that’s not meant as a justification for Putin invading Ukraine! It’s just context here, whether you’re willing or able to consider it or not.

How is "a big part of why Putin invaded Ukraine" not EXACTLY THE SAME THING as "justification for Putin invading Ukraine"?

This is what I'm talking about.

You keep adopting/supporting/finding merit in pro-Putin talking points, and then trying to walk away from them by occasionally saying "fuck Putin".

[Sparko]

For those following Ous's not confusing arguments, he's not not pro-Russian sometimes.

[jfish26]

For those following Ous's not confusing arguments, he's not not pro-Russian sometimes.

I think he's having a hard time reconciling (1) a general desire not to be pro-Putin with (2) opinions on world politics that are, in some way, sympathetic to (and/or desired by) Putin.

[ousdahl]

Justification is “the action of showing something to be right or reasonable”

Just saying why is more an explanation, meant more as a statement that makes something clear.

I think you’re having a hard time reconciling that!

I’m not saying it was right or reasonable for Putin to invade, I’m just saying the history books will prob include something like, “Putin invaded because he perceived NATO’s expansion to Ukraine as a threat to Russia.” The history books won’t take a position and say Putin is RIGHT for doing so, they’ll just explain the situation as a historical matter of fact.

[jfish26]

Justification is “the action of showing something to be right or reasonable”

Just saying why is more an explanation, meant more as a statement that makes something clear.

I think you’re having a hard time reconciling that!

I’m not saying it was right or reasonable for Putin to invade, I’m just saying the history books will prob include something like, “Putin invaded because he perceived NATO’s expansion to Ukraine as a threat to Russia.” The history books won’t take a position and say Putin is RIGHT for doing so, they’ll just explain the situation as a historical matter of fact.

But this is NOT what you said.

You said that "using Ukraine as a pawn to aggressively expand our own military footprint right up to Putin’s doorstep, then when telling Putin to pound sand when he tried for a diplomatic resolution, is a big part of why Putin invaded Ukraine."

There is nothing about Putin's perception, or misperception, there. In what you said.

In fact, you led into that statement with "maybe we could admit" - meaning you, personally, believe your statement to be true. There would be no need for us to "admit" things that aren't true.

If you meant to criticize Putin's misperception, you would have done so. You did not: you called for us to "admit" that Putin's justification for his war of aggression was valid.

You might say this is all very technical.

But the detail here is quite relevant to the issue - which is that you just keep on saying things in a way that excuses, at least in part, Putin's war of aggression.

Which gets back to the reconciliation point. I don't think you LIKE that you're defending Putin. But that's what you're doing, by letting him off the hook here on the bases of things like (1) NATO's arming of Ukraine, (2) the west rejecting Putin's attempt at "diplomatic resolution" (what exactly WAS that, anyway?) and (3) Ukrainian nazis.

[ousdahl]

Again, I don’t mean to excuse a thing for Putin and his militant imperial explanation.

Do you mean to excuse the US/NATO’s militant imperial expansion?

[jfish26]

Again, I don’t mean to excuse a thing for Putin and his militant imperial explanation.

Do you mean to excuse the US/NATO’s militant imperial expansion?

But, you do make excuses for Putin. Over and over and over you do. You won't stop.

And while I am not defending our record, I very much AM saying that whatever our record, it has nothing at all to do with whether Putin was justified in waging a unilateral war of aggression and conquest against Ukraine.

[twocoach]

Again, I don’t mean to excuse a thing for Putin and his militant imperial explanation.

Do you mean to excuse the US/NATO’s militant imperial expansion?

It doesn't need to be excused. It's the ninth time that NATO membership has been expanded and I see no reason not to support it.

[twocoach]

Justification is “the action of showing something to be right or reasonable”

Just saying why is more an explanation, meant more as a statement that makes something clear.

I think you’re having a hard time reconciling that!

I’m not saying it was right or reasonable for Putin to invade, I’m just saying the history books will prob include something like, “Putin invaded because he perceived NATO’s expansion to Ukraine as a threat to Russia.” The history books won’t take a position and say Putin is RIGHT for doing so, they’ll just explain the situation as a historical matter of fact.

A proper history book would say “Putin claimed that he invaded because he perceived NATO’s expansion to Ukraine as a threat to Russia.” It is absolutely NOT a historical matter of fact that he did it for that reason. The fact that you accept his claim as a matter of historical fact is why everyone has been busting your chops here for months.

[ousdahl]

Oh, so as long as I preface statements with, “Putin claimed…,” then I’ll be in the clear?

As if I don’t get ridiculed for parroting Putin enough!

[ousdahl]

Again, I don’t mean to excuse a thing for Putin and his militant imperial explanation.

Do you mean to excuse the US/NATO’s militant imperial expansion?

It doesn't need to be excused. It's the ninth time that NATO membership has been expanded and I see no reason not to support it.

Careful, bro!