That's the impression I get from the Pope's comment.
He questions Ukraine's defense & assistance.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pope Francis criticised for questioning Nato and weapons sales
- Thread starter ajay0
- Start date
He questions Ukraine's defense & assistance.
Unconstitutional. Intervening in third countries militarily is unconstitutional.
But I do know Italian representatives spit on our Constitution on a daily basis...because they have a Machiavellian and unchristian approach to their duty.
[QUOTE="Revoltingest, post: 7716253, member: 22490" As for dissuading
the Russians, this is a compelling argument....
[/QUOTE]
Yesterday Maria Zacharova, spokesperson of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the West has been isolating Russia since the early 21st century. Wickedly, inexorably, maliciously.
So it is the West who has started to antagonize Russia, before all this conflict started.
Before Putin.
Before the Crimea question.
So... do I need to believe that the West is in good faith?
the Russians, this is a compelling argument....
Yesterday Maria Zacharova, spokesperson of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the West has been isolating Russia since the early 21st century. Wickedly, inexorably, maliciously.
So it is the West who has started to antagonize Russia, before all this conflict started.
Before Putin.
Before the Crimea question.
So... do I need to believe that the West is in good faith?
Last edited:
Whose constitution was violated when Russia
invaded Ukraine, & is now bombing them into
the stone age?
[QUOTE="Revoltingest, post: 7716253, member: 22490" As for dissuading
the Russians, this is a compelling argument....
Yesterday Maria Zacharova, spokesperson of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the West has been isolating Russia since the early 21st century. Wickedly, inexorably, maliciously.
So it is the West who has started to antagonize Russia, before all this conflict started.
Before Putin.
Before the Crimea question.
So... do I need to believe that the West is in good faith?[/QUOTE]
Poor Russia.
Always the victim.
Who has invaded them (other than Hitler)?
Have you not noticed that Russia antagonizes
many of its neighbors, eg, NATO, Japan, USA,
Crimea, Ukraine, Finland, Moldova?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I condemn war. Any war.
As the Pope suggested... a war cannot be terminated by more weapons.
More weapons = more war.
What of your claim of constitutional violation?
Article 11. My country cannot go into war unless
1) its own territory is attacked, just to defend itself
2) the territory of an ally is attacked, just to defend it.
Last edited:
Your constitution doesn't really apply to Russia,
Ukraine, or USA. But is Ukraine not Italy's ally?
Could you not declare it one?
Ukraine is not in the NATO.
Why should that stop anyone from assisting
Ukraine's defense against a vile invader?
Assisting Ukrainians through humanitarian aid, and through diplomacy.
Trying to find a peace solution
Maybe the Pope ought to stick to religion.
Getting into politics, you're going to **** somebody off.
No empathy for the people of Ukraine?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I strongly felt and still feel that the Ukrainian leaders should have opted for nonviolence so as to minimize casualties, and then worked with noncooperation or limited cooperation. I find these approaches more compatible with the Gospel.
Humanitarian aid would only make Putin's job
of conquering the country easier, ie, he wouldn't
have to provide any services other than killing
them & destroying their buildings.
Pacifism only works if the aggressor respects it.
Otherwise it's hogs marching off to slaughter.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
I still feel like I should read more articles on the unrest in colombia from a few years ago, which side was the u.s. on for that? I don't think anyone here even bothered to make a thread on that.
I'd rather send the 40 billion to Mexico or something, or to others on this side of the ocean, to help give them infrastructure, if we must send 40 billion to a foreign country. I watched a video earlier that talked about how they finally have ambulances now in the parts of Mexico in the countryside, but they lack equipment and trained personnel in them. Whatever their problems are, it sounds like the 40 billion might help them, and help us, since there surely are mutual benefits to having neighbors that are doing well
We also have people here too, in america, that do suffer sufficiently enough as well, to probably need aid. Plus, I think putin is crazy, and I don't like this game we are playing here, possibly now thinking about sending longer range weapons, if I am hearing the news on this correctly. How close do you want to get, to giving a crazy person an 'excuse' to do worse things.
Last edited:
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Look, russia has 6.6 million square miles of territory. The u.s., apparently has 3.5 million. If you can't figure out what to do with 6.6 million square miles, then you have work on things. Italy has .1 million square miles, but they were able to create a prosperous place like Rome. So then Russia should have room to create like 60 romes
I like them, too.
I didn't see that he was questioning Ukraine's right to defend itself. He was just questioning whether NATO was doing the right thing by sending weapons. Maybe they could have tried to mediate or help them negotiate a truce rather than sending arms. Trying make peace sounds like something Jesus might have done.