Do you want the Ukrainian War to end today?

[Stevicus]

With all due respect, I believe the US doesn't treat all of its allies equally.
France, UK...of course. They are considered great allies and they are permanent members of the UN.

I understood that the US still, kinda hold some grudge towards Germany. Because of WW2.
Despite the fact, that Germans love the US. It's one of the most americanized places you'll find in Europe.
Germans recall American intervention with great love and thankfulness.
The Kessler Twins, here, said that American soldiers used to feed German civilians, after the war.

But the Nordstream question showed that Germany is not independent.
Germany doesn't have the same independence as France.
And Germany is the first industrial power in Europe, and the first economy in Europe. France is the fourth industrial power, after Italy, which is the second.

I don't think Americans have any real grudge against Germany. Or Japan, for that matter - although there might be some who do. It was a long time ago, and the perpetrators are long dead.

Our relationships with France and Britain go back to the very beginning of independence. Although over time, our interests started to align with each other as the major Atlantic powers. They were certainly powerful, and had large empires. They were definitely strong enough to be a threat to America if they chose to be, although they could also see that we were growing in strength by leaps and bounds. Yet, we weren't any threat to them either.

The rise of Germany (and to a lesser extent, the rise of Russia) made things more dicey for Britain and France. They felt like Germany might have been muscling on their action, and they pushed back - hard. Most historians seem to place the lion's share of blame on Germany for WW1 - and a good case is made for that. Or it could be the same, usual squabbles Europeans have had for centuries, but with modern, industrial weapons which bring about enormous devastation and death.

I think that may have been Americans' view after that war: "This is what Europeans do. They squabble and fight all the time, so if they want to fight, let 'em fight. What's it to us?"

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that may have been Americans' view after that war: "This is what Europeans do. They squabble and fight all the time, so if they want to fight, let 'em fight. What's it to us?"

The EU was created to prevent the wars. The EU countries have been at peace for 80 years, now.

That's why many of us want Ukraine to join the EU as soon as possible. So it cannot be used as battlefield any more, and it will have a perpetual peace, like that of Western Europe.

But many are against it. Many are against it because they would like to use to Ukrainians as cannon fodder against Putin. And that's horrific.

And Zelenskyy seems more focused on warfare, weaponry...than on the EU joining process.

 

[Copernicus]

It's a cultural thing.
You guys manage your debates differently than us.

Because in our debates, we apply the same standards on different situations.
Otherwise one is accused of doublestandardism. And double standards are inapplicable in a debate.

You cannot convince me of something cultural which is light years away from my cultural framework.

Estro, logic is the same for all cultures. I can only guess which "culture" you think you are feeling solidarity with--EU, Italy, rightwing ideologues?--but you don't represent anyone but your own individual self here.

 

[Estro Felino]

Estro, logic is the same for all cultures. I can only guess which "culture" you think you are feeling solidarity with--EU, Italy, rightwing ideologues?--but you don't represent anyone but your own individual self here.

The rule of a normal debate is:

1) First we agree on the same standards applied for all situation. The Law is equal for all.

2) If you apply different standards to different situations, you are at fault.

I am sorry...you cannot apply two different standards to two different situations. That's injustice.

 

[Estro Felino]

Estro, logic is the same for all cultures. I can only guess which "culture" you think you are feeling solidarity with--EU, Italy, rightwing ideologues?--but you don't represent anyone but your own individual self here.

Europe, I guess.
Just ask the French what deux poids et deux mésures means.
Or what a Doppelmoral is, to the Germans.

 

[Copernicus]

The rule of a normal debate is:

1) First we agree on the same standards applied for all situation. The Law is equal for all.

2) If you apply different standards to different situations, you are at fault.

I am sorry...you cannot apply two different standards to two different situations. That's injustice.

Nothing I said had anything to do with "the law", nor did I apply different standards to different situations. So there is no need for you to apologize to me.

Europe, I guess.
Just ask the French what deux poids et deux mésures means.
Or what a Doppelmoral is, to the Germans.

It doesn't matter who I ask. You don't represent either country or Europe in general. You represent yourself. If you want to engage in whataboutery, nobody will stop you, but you won't be supporting your own opinions with a valid argument. The rule of normal debate is that the standard of logic holds for all arguments. Even in Europe.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nothing I said had anything to do with "the law", nor did I apply different standards to different situations.

Wanna try?
Let's start a debate right now. The debate is: can a country invade another independent, autonomous country just because of some assumptions?


Answer.

 

[Copernicus]

Wanna try?
Let's start a debate right now. The debate is: can a country invade another independent, autonomous country just because of some assumptions?


Answer.

Your debate topic is already veering in the direction of a straw man setup, just like the answers to the OP question you started the thread with. Let's stick with the invasion under discussion--Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukrainian territory and its renewal in 2022. Make your assumptions clear before you ask anyone to debate them.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your debate topic is already veering in the direction of a straw man setup, just like the answers to the OP question you started the thread with. Let's stick with the invasion under discussion--Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukrainian territory and its renewal in 2022. Make your assumptions clear before you ask anyone to debate them.

It's very likely you do apply different standards to different situations.

That is, you apply two different standards to USA and Russia.
Correct me if I am wrong.

If that's the case, one cannot engage in a sane, fruitful debate. Because I cannot make a point.

 

[Copernicus]

It's very likely you do apply different standards to different situations.

That is, you apply two different standards to USA and Russia.
Correct me if I am wrong.

If that's the case, one cannot engage in a sane, fruitful debate. Because I cannot make a point.

I have no idea what "standards" you think I apply. I was only discussing the standard of logic as it applies to your arguments about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Whataboutisms and other ad hominem attacks--alleging hypocrisy--are logically invalid no matter what invasions you are discussing.

 

[Unfettered]

For this American, the question comes down to...

1) If a nation on either side of the conflict has cause to assert that its rights are being infringed by the other, and
2) that nation has not provoked such infringement through infringement against the other, and
3) if armed conflict is judged by that nation to be the only way to retain its rights

then

I would expect that nation to pursue the protection of its rights through armed conflict until its rights are once again secure, or until it fails.

And no other nations could justly get involved unless the highest of accountability bars was first cleared. (I know I haven't defined the bar to clear; deal with it; I'm just sharing an overall idea)

If any of the first three conditions fails, it would only be just that the conflict would end immediately.

 

[Stonetree]

I would like to know why Russia can't keep those 4 regions annexed.

Would you offer all lands north of Genoa and south of Naples to Mr. Putin for his birthday?

 

[Estro Felino]

Would you offer all lands north of Genoa and south of Naples to Mr. Putin for his birthday?

Putin is not interested in lands where people speak Italian.
He annexed those four regions because people speak Russian, there.

So,..I guess maybe it's Ukraine which owned those four regions illegitimately...or pointlessly.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have no idea what "standards" you think I apply. I was only discussing the standard of logic as it applies to your arguments about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Whataboutisms and other ad hominem attacks--alleging hypocrisy--are logically invalid no matter what invasions you are discussing.

That's not what a sane and a fruitful debate is.

A debate is about mutual respect.
And mutual respect is to establish standards which are valid for any subject, otherwise it's cherry-picking.
Otherwise either interlocutor becomes the stronger part who imposes what can be discussed and what cannot be discussed.
And the other part undergoes it, silently.

That's not what a equitable debate is, I am sorry.

 

[Estro Felino]

For this American, the question comes down to...

1) If a nation on either side of the conflict has cause to assert that its rights are being infringed by the other, and
2) that nation has not provoked such infringement through infringement against the other, and
3) if armed conflict is judged by that nation to be the only way to retain its rights

then

I would expect that nation to pursue the protection of its rights through armed conflict until its rights are once again secure, or until it fails.

And no other nations could justly get involved unless the highest of accountability bars was first cleared. (I know I haven't defined the bar to clear; deal with it; I'm just sharing an overall idea)

If any of the first three conditions fails, it would only be just that the conflict would end immediately.

The reasons why Iraq, Libya and Syria were invaded by the US.

 

[We Never Know]

Russia May Have Just Given Ukraine Terms for Ending War

Russia May Have Just Given Ukraine Terms for Ending War

Will that be acceptable? "A top Kremlin official on Saturday suggested Russia could agree to an end to the war in Ukraine if a key condition is met. During a press conference at the United Nations General Assembly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov indicated Russia would recognize...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Unfettered]

The reasons why Iraq, Libya and Syria were invaded by the US.

The reasons are...? Did you post before finishing?

 

[Stonetree]

Putin is not interested in lands where people speak Italian.
He annexed those four regions because people speak Russian, there.

So,..I guess maybe it's Ukraine which owned those four regions illegitimately...or pointlessly.

You are just pulling legs, now, If I recall correctly, you studied some law. You can't be that far off simple justice.

 

[Copernicus]

I have no idea what "standards" you think I apply. I was only discussing the standard of logic as it applies to your arguments about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Whataboutisms and other ad hominem attacks--alleging hypocrisy--are logically invalid no matter what invasions you are discussing.

That's not what a sane and a fruitful debate is.

A debate is about mutual respect.
And mutual respect is to establish standards which are valid for any subject, otherwise it's cherry-picking.

If you believe that, then why do you not accept logic as a standard valid for any subject? It seems that you keep hoisting yourself by your own petard. We should all strive to make logical arguments and avoid fallacies. I don't know why that is such a problem for you.

 

[Heyo]

Estro, logic is the same for all cultures.

But not all cultures value logic the same.