Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 6:14 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 2:16 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 1:52 pm

I don’t think Russia is justified. Once again, that’s you trying to put words into my mouth.

If anything, I think the current approach of piecemeal support for Ukraine is benefitting Russia. Putin IS fulfilling his goal of imperial expansion, after all.

That’s a big part of the reason why I think we desperately need to rethink our strategy here.

These are words - uncut, unchanged - that came out of your mouth today:

I think your definition of warmongering applies very much to what we’re putting Ukraine in a situation to do.

we flood the place with weapons of war, and war happens.

To suggest otherwise is some stubborn stance along the lines of “but I just refuse to consider that the common denominator in the gun violence thread is guns.”

Do these words not mean that you think we, by arming Ukraine, are at least partially responsible for Russia attacking Ukraine?

Oh I absolutely think we are at least partially responsible for Russia attacking Ukraine.

The only way one could think otherwise is to, whether intentionally or not, completely ignore so much of the context of the situation - which, heads up, you and several others here appear to have done. But, again, we’ve been over that.

But to think we’re at least partially responsible for Russia invading Ukraine, is not to say I think Russia is justified in invading Ukraine. Again, we’ve been over that too.

Again again, this seems futile.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 8:01 am If our gummint wants to furnish weapons, or train extremists, or build bases, or stage coups, or whatever; I suppose you think it’s up to the rest of the world to just put up with it.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 8:01 am Yea.

And I guess it doesn’t have to do with whether Russia was justified in invading Ukraine, cuz apparently we agree they were not.

As far as I can tell, it’s cuz you cannot, and/or will not, consider any scenario at all in which the United States should bear any responsibility whatsoever for our own militancy abroad.

If our gummint wants to furnish weapons, or train extremists, or build bases, or stage coups, or whatever; I suppose you think it’s up to the rest of the world to just put up with it.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 8:40 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 8:01 am Yea.

And I guess it doesn’t have to do with whether Russia was justified in invading Ukraine, cuz apparently we agree they were not.

As far as I can tell, it’s cuz you cannot, and/or will not, consider any scenario at all in which the United States should bear any responsibility whatsoever for our own militancy abroad.

If our gummint wants to furnish weapons, or train extremists, or build bases, or stage coups, or whatever; I suppose you think it’s up to the rest of the world to just put up with it.

You keep going to the poles on this, and of course reality is in the middle.

I have never said we’re blameless generally - far from it.

But the bridge I cannot cross is saying we have any responsibility for Russia waging ground war on Ukraine civilians and territory. My opinion is that that’s a pro-Putin talking point that waters down the blame on Putin, for choosing without justification to wage ground war on Ukraine and its civilians and territory.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 1:40 pm Sigh.

I guess it’s some disagreement between responsibility and justification. Honestly seems a little false equivalence-y.

Let’s try the analogy of the drunken bar fight - again.

So one guy clenches his pool cue and squares up and gets in another guy’s face, screaming at him and daring him to swing.

That’s not appropriate!

But say the other guy DOES swing.

That’s not appropriate, either!

They’re both gonna get kicked out of the bar, no matter how many times they try to explain to the bouncer that, “…but HE started it!”

I think you could reasonably say guy 1 bears at least partial responsibility for starting a fight, right? But I’m also not sure that means the other guy was justified in swinging, either.

Or, let’s try to flip the script - again.

Say Russia tried to meddle in like Mexico. Or Canada. Or Cuba! They start supplying arms, and training anti-American extremists, and staging a coup (or at least benefiting from a coup that someone conveniently staged)

I think we can suggest with a high degree of confidence that Fish would be here 1. Insisting Russia is completely and unilaterally responsible for the conflict, and 2. Insisting the U.S. is entirely justified in invading whatever country is being armed and trained.