I suppose it came about when someone conflated my rational and practical approach to foreign policy with "allowing despots to act with impunity," "ignoring war crimes and human rights violations," and "letting democracies fall."
-
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!
'Russia is now at war with NATO and the West'
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
I suppose it came about when someone conflated my rational and practical approach to foreign policy with "allowing despots to act with impunity," "ignoring war crimes and human rights violations," and "letting democracies fall."
I do understand this sympathy...and we do have it as well. Helping Ukrainian refugees is a must for the EU. We are doing it, proudly.
But...
do Americans know that Libyans were massacred as well, because of a war unleashed because a US President sided with the radicals? Because he did anything to favor this civil war?
Libyans deserve the same exact sympathy, I guess.
What do you think of Obama and Hillary, @Stevicus ?
The American media presented the Libya situation differently, so opinions and attitudes are different based on the information received and how it's presented. It doesn't mean that Americans blindly believe what the government or media tell them; in fact, most people are often inclined to disbelieve politicians and the talking heads of media. But more often than not, they don't know enough about a situation to be able to formulate any coherent opinion of opposition against it. Many Americans probably don't even know where Libya is.
As for what I think of Obama and Hillary, I think they are politicians. I don't know either of them personally, but my perceptions of politicians can often be separated between my view of them as individuals and as members of a particular political faction. I've noticed that, when it comes to matters such as foreign policy (which would include military policy and anything done by US intelligence services) is that there has been a sense of "continuity" within that realm, regardless of whichever party happens to be in power at any given time. The idea being that America's national interests don't suddenly change because a new person is elected to office. They're expected to carry the same torch held by their predecessors, although some slight alterations and style changes might be allowable.
Some politicians (like Obama and Hillary) might enter politics for what they might regard as good, noble, and honorable reasons. There's a lot of injustice, a lot of poverty, a lot of cruelty and blatant unfairness that does lead people of good conscience to react in outrage - and some of them enter politics for that reason. When they're young and full of vigor, they might even be seen hanging out with radicals, but others chose to go through the legal route of "working within the system" in order to be able to do some good in this world. Sure, maybe they're in it for their own personal advancement and prestige to some extent, but the general perception might be that they're the lesser of two evils. But they also have to play ball, too. That's the downside of working within the system, because then they're kind of locked in. Even if no one directly tells them, and there's certainly no "conspiracy" about it. It's just the understanding and expectation that, for the sake of continuity and a shared perception of Western diplomatic interests, our government and the politicians who lead it are expected to follow a certain course of action.
It's almost like they don't even have any choice, and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to make any other choice. It's like that famous picture of LBJ, who found himself in the quagmire of Vietnam and he genuinely did not have the faintest clue as to what to do about it. So, he quit. He couldn't figure out the problem. Even though there were many choices he could have made, it seemed he was stuck between a rock and a hard place, where every possible choice was the wrong choice, at least in some people's eyes.
One can find experts on any side of a complex
& emotional issue.
So merely providing a link isn't an argument.
Just an appeal to authority...of your choosing.
About "necessary"...it depends upon what one values.
Saving lives on our side in a just war of great threat
looked necessary to me.
You & your experts might care more about personal
own emotional reaction to the horror of nuclear bombs
than the lives of USA soldiers. But other experts have
said that the death total would've been higher without
the bombs because invasion was the alternative.
Given that premise, would you still have opposed
deploying the novel weapon, even though more
people would've died?
Nuclear weapons are still with us, & serving a defensive
purpose. Russia has proposed changing that to using
them offensively in pursuit of conquest.
Yet you complain of some people here waving
Confederate flags....which offend many, but kill none.
Are you aware that USSR committed heinous atrocities
during WW2? I don't use that as evidence of Russia's
more pervasive moral depravity because in a war posing
an existential threat as real as the Nazis did, people do
things they wouldn't otherwise. I cut them slack on this.
I'm sure they do...to you.
That's because you & the other people you know
never faced the prospect of a drawn out invasion
of Japan. I had friends & relatives who did, so
discussing the bombings with them was more about
pragmatism of minimizing death.
More importantly, I look at which way of ending the
war was the least deadly...& that was nuking them.
Your approach would've meant more deaths for both
USA & Japan. What matters to you is the use of
nuclear bombs...not so much the effects of all
alternatives.
Again, we killed far more Japanese civilians using
firebombing than nuclear bombs, yet you're silent
on those.
Because your posts appear so, albeit based more
on hostility to USA, than on favoring Russia.
Yours "is exactly the kind of achingly" anti-American thinking
that leads to Russian apologetics, & willingness to allow
Russia to have its way, ie, the enemy of your enemy is
your friend (ie, Russia).
I see great evil in Russia's attempt to conquer Ukraine,
& it's threats to go after other countries. I favor countering
that agenda, & this means war in self defense for Ukraine,
with our help. There is no equivalency in USA & Russian
positions on this. Russia long done this, & isn't backing
down. And so I expressed preference for Russia's demise
into different peaceful countries.
You're bringing in wars that I opposed, as though
I support them. No way, Jose.
As for Afghanistan, are you aware that Russia too
invaded that country? So it's a lousy criticism to
level against USA, but not Russia.
That straw man isn't what I'm addressing.
The picture is far larger than those issues.
Note that Russia invaded Ukraine not on some
mis-guided mission to fix a country or impose
a desired democracy....it's to conquer & take
it to incorporate as part of Russia. It appears
that you equate this with USA misadventures,
entirely ignoring motive.
The rest of your post is more of the same.
Time to agree to disagree.
Last edited:
You're assuming that the basis for opposition to the nukes is "personal own emotional reaction." That oversimplifies the myriad of concerns about the usage of nukes, especially on two civilian areas.
Your question also doesn't seem to me one that can be answered without making a leap and automatically granting that the premise is correct (i.e., that more people would have died if not for the nuking of the two cities). Again, I'm not comfortable granting such a premise just for the sake of argument and casually saying "yes, it was fine to drop nukes. It even saved lives!"
Putin and his regime are imperialist war criminals. That still has no bearing on the history and actions of the US.
Yes. I'm also aware of the bombing of Dresden. Even people who fight for a justified and necessary cause can commit war crimes. They should be held accountable afterward too.
You're still taking for granted that the nukes were the less deadly option. This is highly disputed at best.
The subject of the nukes is more relevant to Russia's current threats of nuclear war, but I know the US was criminally lax in the liberty with which it killed civilians both in some instances during World War II and in almost every war it has fought since.
They would be apologetic if I defended Russia's actions, which I have zero interest in doing. What I'm doing here is pointing out that this petard you're throwing at Russian culture and people could hoist the US as well because of its comparable historical and political record. It would be far more useful to focus on the shared opposition to Putin's crimes and expansionist aspirations instead of frequently demonizing Russia wholesale in the process.
Russia isn't my friend or the friend of any of the Middle Eastern countries in which it has fostered despotism or military aggression (e.g., Syria and Iran). It's the friend of the dictators it supports.
Whereas we agree that the position of the US concerning Ukraine is far better than Russia's, we disagree that the entire country's "demise into different peaceful countries" is something realistic or useful to argue. It would be similar to wishing for the "demise" of the US into separate states acting as independent countries because of the previous actions of the US.
I know you opposed them; I'm only bringing them up as examples of destructive foreign-policy decisions that some proponents of the US justify when they clearly wouldn't do so if another country did the same.
And yes, Russia invaded Afghanistan and also committed war crimes in Syria. There's a reason many in the Middle East don't exactly consider Russia a friend.
Stated motive doesn't change the real-world outcomes of a policy. How many of the Iraqis or Afghans who have lost someone to American aggression do you think would accept "motive" as a justification for their loss? Does it make a difference? Does it somehow reduce the number of people who have died or the amount of destruction to the invaded countries? Does it erase from people's memories the hideous photos of torture and crimes that came out of Gitmo Bay and Abu Ghraib?
Discussing motive as a significantly relevant factor in this context is largely a luxury of distant observers, and that's if we even grant that American motive was a "misguided mission to fix a country or impose a desired democracy." Many see it differently, me included. I see it as American imposition of its geopolitical interests and hegemony through military force.
The only meaningful motive-based distinction I see between past American wars and Russia's war on Ukraine is that Russia wants to annex parts of Ukrainian territory. The other outcomes are largely the same: massive loss of life, destruction of an entire country, and numerous war crimes.
Yeah, I don't think we'll agree on this one, so that's a good idea.
Last edited:
I've nothing to add, so it remains time to agree to disagree
about whether USA is as bad or worse than Russia.
Last edited:
My country hasn't started a war in the latest 75 years...so it's different than both
Next time, be more careful whom you side with.My country hasn't started a war in the latest 75 years...so it's different than both
How do you imagine that we are going to end up owning Gazprom and all those resources? There is no way for that to happen. I do not understand why you think so. If Russia ends this war on bad terms (for it) then the benefits will go to: Russia, Europe, and Scandinavia. We can't touch it. We aren't owed any reparations.
Do Italians want to conquer Europe? Then neither do Americans wish to conquer Europe. Do they wish to conquer Russia? Why? I don't grasp why.
No American citizen has ever explained me, so far, why President Biden has always tried to shut down the Nordstreams.
So I suspect they want to seize it.
That interview is from 2020. As of 2021 the Biden administration changed and began lobbying (lobbying Congress) against sanctions on the Nordstreams. (see Biden puts Democrats in bind with push against sanctions on Russian pipeline)
I think he was opposed to them in 2020 but because Germany still wanted the pipelines he felt he shouldn't offend Germany over them and tried to stop the Republicans from slapping sanctions on the pipelines. Either that or it was purely a political maneuver against the Republicans.
As of 2022 and 2023 I do not know what he thinks.
In the news....
Ukraine: Boris Johnson says Putin threatened him with missile strike
Putin sure is Hitleresque, albeit an older less competent one.
At least that's better than being young & a more capable cancer.
Ukraine: Boris Johnson says Putin threatened him with missile strike
Putin sure is Hitleresque, albeit an older less competent one.
At least that's better than being young & a more capable cancer.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
To be fair, using a missile strike against Boris Johnson sounds based as hell.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I'm not so sure.
Chances are kind of enormous that in corrupt Russia, funding required for actual much needed maintenance of nuclear weapons has been diverted into the pockets of russian elites and oligarch - including Putin himself.
Put that on top of the fact that while Russia has a bigger nuclear arsenal then the US, the US spends quite a lot more money on annual maintenance.
So really, it remains to be seen just how many of their 6000 nukes are in fact still operational enough to use to full effect.
20+ years of deep corruption and putting "friends" in position of power instead of the actually qualified, has clearly left its devastating stamp on the military apparatus. Even with overwhelming bigger number of boots, they got their behinds handed to them on multiple occasions in ex-soviet ukraine.
They can't even manage as the giant they supposedly are, against that one non-nato country which for the most part uses the same weapons they themselves use.
They are not a match of Nato at all. It would be over very quickly.
But yes, they only need just a few operational nukes in order to unleash widespread destruction.
The question however is: 1. do they know which ones those are and 2. will the chain of command actually work?
NATO will not throw nukes first. So it remains to be seen if russian officers etc who actually press the buttons, will actually follow through on an order of which they know that it won't change the outcome of the conflict at all and instead just set off an unnecessary nuclear infernus, simply out of spite from the madmen in charge....
Off course, I really hope it doesn't come to direct NATO involvement. It would redraw the future of the world for decades, if not centuries, to come. I'ld prefer the solution coming from within Russia and the people revolting to finally bring a real democracy to the table with actual fair elections and without an elite that becomes filthy rich through corruption.
If that were to happen, why... Russia itself might actually be part of NATO a century from now.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
They likely thought it would be as easy as getting crimea.
I don't know, it seems like russia has some stuff it hasn't used. It used a hypersonic missile once or twice, I thought. I don't think they went and used any chemical weapons, I don't know if that would incite nato.
I thought I read or heard that we were giving ukraine like 40 billion dollars worth of aid in this thing. So I don't know really, what the match-up looks between the sides at this point, as far as what is being used is concerned. Nor am I really the right person to ask, as I'm really not that knowledgeable on that many details, on this finer-detail level military stuff. I think the major deterrents, like nukes, are more relevant, than any of this conventional stuff
If a country is being attacked, and it engages in something like guerilla warfare, well it kind of always seems that the defending country, in knowing the terrain, has an automatic advantage. And then, do they also have any added logistical radar-type assistance, from the western powers, to know where to use the high-mars etc.? So I don't know
What is their chain command with all that, isn't it like 3 people, going through a nuclear football?
Last edited:
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
I don't think we'd spend money on sub-hunter planes, or all these nuclear command and control planes, if we didn't think they had this kind of stuff.
"Based"?
I'd have used words like "crazy" & "dangerous".
I have never seen the point in comparing sizes of nuclear arsenals either; I think maintenance and operability are the only practically relevant factors. What is the difference between 100 nukes and 10,000? Does any country think it could keep launching or receiving them like hand grenades? Just one or two high-yield nukes could destroy an entire country, let alone several or more warheads. Once one goes flying, it's over.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Only for Boris Johnson. And since everyone is steering clear of him right now, collateral damage is minimal.
Some problems with that statement....
- Nukes aren't nearly that capable.
- More weapons are launched than necessary
because an unknown number will be destroyed
before reaching the target.
- There are many targets, eg, cities,
manufacturing areas, military installations,
missile silos.
- Aged warheads are unreliable, but can still
pose a threat with repurposing as dirty bombs
to make areas off-limits for many decades.
In a nuclear war, it's likely that Russia would
lose, but no one would win.