Why the double standard?

[Koldo]

So a soldier who was forcefully by law put into the army is to blame as much as the one who hates a group and wants to torment them? The medical team who go there just to treat wounded soldiers should suffer for supporting "the enemy". The people who have no say in what their government and military does should be punished? The people who are unaware of this all but live there should be punished? Or the soldiers and public who have been brainwashed and led astray in order to have them partake in this war are to blame for trying to do the right thing in their minds?

I am not talking about what 'should' or 'should not' happen. I am talking about what is going to happen. If you are a soldier, you must be prepared to die.

That's alot of misguided hate and blame, you're a douche bag

Haha. I suggest you edit this part of your post before a Mod shows up.

 

[crossfire]

I wouldn't use the word conspiracy because it implies secrecy. I think antisemitism is very up front and in your face.

It's not antisemitism. It's this:

As an American taxpayer, you're helping to fund the killing of Palestinians and Lebanese people. You aren't funding the killing of Ukrainians.

Genocide by any means is generally frowned upon.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

I am not talking about what 'should' or 'should not' happen. I am talking about what is going to happen. If you are a soldier, you must be prepared to die.



Haha. I suggest you edit this part of your post before a Mod shows up.

See that? I was wrong to assume you wer3 that cuz you just helped save me despite our back and forth.

Edited it now to something I like better anyways, appreciate it

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

It's not antisemitism. It's this:

Genocide by any means is generally frowned upon.

Unless it's god doing it right?

 

[crossfire]

Unless it's god doing it right?

Even if you want to blame it on god--it's still frowned upon.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Even if you want to blame it on god--it's still frowned upon.

I won't blame anything, and okay, so what, it's frowned upon

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That’s not true though is it? The US taxpayer is providing arms to both war zones

The arms the US governments is supplying to Ukraine are going to Ukraine, not Russia.

American taxpayers are only funding the aggressor in one of the two conflicts.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The arms the US governments is supplying to Ukraine are going to Ukraine, not Russia.

American taxpayers are only funding the aggressor in one of the two conflicts.

That's hairsplitting imo, and doesn't alter the fact that American taxpayers are supplying weapons to both warzones. To put it another way, America is pouring petrol on both fires. Team America are playing World Police again, and it's hard to think of an occasion when that's ever ended well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's hairsplitting imo, and doesn't alter the fact that American taxpayers are supplying weapons to both warzones.

Well, no. The OP - an American - asked why she's seeing news about civilian deaths in Gaza but not civilian deaths in Ukraine.

American weapons are killing civilians in Gaza. They aren't killing civilians in Ukraine.

To put it another way, America is pouring petrol on both fires. Team America are playing World Police again, and it's hard to think of an occasion when that's ever ended well.

I'm sure there's a debate to be had about whether it's good policy for the US to arm participants in wars on the other side of the planet. However, the issues are different in these two conflicts.

In Gaza, the US is helping colonialist expansion and genocide. In Ukraine, the US is helping to defend against colonialist expansion and genocide.

While I don't expect that the US's motives are pure and wholly good in Ukraine, their actions there are justifiable in a way that their actions toward Israel and Gaza are not.

 

[Kathryn]

So what?

Should Spain move in and take half of south america? And plenty of the US for that matter?
Does it really change the cards simply because people speak spanish?

I'm saying as I have said before, that I would need to look at recent history.

 

[Kathryn]

It's not antisemitism. It's this:

Genocide by any means is generally frowned upon.

Unless you're Rwandan.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know what I'd do since Russia has no history here. In Ukraine, at least 30 and some say 40 percent of Ukrainians speak Russian. at home and casually. In fact, Zelenskyy is having to learn Ukrainian because he only spoke Russian previously.

30% is almost exactly the percentage of Texan households that speak Spanish at home.

I guess Mexico is entitled to Texas, eh?

 

[Kathryn]

30% is almost exactly the percentage of Texan households that speak Spanish at home.

I guess Mexico is entitled to Texas, eh?

Maybe, I don't know. I wonder what percentage of Americans in general speak Spanish as a first language, and what the recent history (less than 100 years) of Spain is in America.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's hairsplitting imo, and doesn't alter the fact that American taxpayers are supplying weapons to both warzones. To put it another way, America is pouring petrol on both fires. Team America are playing World Police again, and it's hard to think of an occasion when that's ever ended well.

You don't see a difference between supplying arms to an allied country in order to help defend itself against invasion by a significantly more powerful neighbour hoping to spread their influence in Europe, and providing arms to a governmental regime that is actively using those arms to commit multiple war crimes in an occupied territory?

 

[RestlessSoul]

You don't see a difference between supplying arms to an allied country in order to help defend itself against invasion by a significantly more powerful neighbour hoping to spread their influence in Europe, and providing arms to a governmental regime that is actively using those arms to commit multiple war crimes in an occupied territory?

Since when has Ukraine been an allied country of the US?

Apart from that, how confident are you that your characterisation of both conflicts is accurate and well informed?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Since when has Ukraine been an allied country of the US?

Since 1991.

Technical Difficulties

Apart from that, how confident are you that your characterisation of both conflicts is accurate and well informed?

Very confident. And even if they weren't, the central point stands: it's simple logic that providing arms to one group under one set of circumstances can be justified while providing arms to another group under another set of circumstances may not be. Simplistically believing that giving arms to states in all cases is wrong is incredibly reductive, not to say massively harmful when you consider the desperate need for them in Ukraine.

I agree that America could tone down its "world policing", but if America has to involve itself at all in global affairs (which it does) I'd rather it did things I agree with and less things I didn't. Arming a country defending itself against invasion by a totalitarian state is good. Arming a country committing war crimes and occupation is bad. In both cases, the morality is determined not by the act of arming itself, but by the circumstances and justifications for arming and the broader context around it. This is how you engage with geopolitics, and it's unhelpful - or outright harmful - to ignore this because you have moral misgivings about America being the ones doing it. I care less about your negative feelings towards America than the feelings of a Ukrainian soldier defending their home, or a Palestinian civilian sheltering their family. Those are the things that matter to me, and those are the things that SHOULD matter to any reasonable humanist or any kind of genuine humanitarian .

 

[Kathryn]

Since 1991.

Technical Difficulties

Very confident. And even if they weren't, the central point stands: it's simple logic that providing arms to one group under one set of circumstances can be justified while providing arms to another group under another set of circumstances may not be. Simplistically believing that giving arms to states in all cases is wrong is incredibly reductive, not to say massively harmful when you consider the desperate need for them in Ukraine.

I agree that America could tone down its "world policing", but if America has to involve itself at all in global affairs (which it does) I'd rather it did things I agree with and less things I didn't. Arming a country defending itself against invasion by a totalitarian state is good. Arming a country committing war crimes and occupation is bad. In both cases, the morality is determined not by the act of arming itself, but by the circumstances and justifications for arming and the broader context around it. This is how you engage with geopolitics, and it's unhelpful - or outright harmful - to ignore this because you have moral misgivings about America being the ones doing it. I care less about your negative feelings towards America than the feelings of a Ukrainian soldier defending their home, or a Palestinian civilian sheltering their family. Those are the things that matter to me, and those are the things that SHOULD matter to any reasonable humanist or any kind of genuine humanitarian .

What about arming a country who voted against joining NATO over and over again? What about arming a country with a big Nazi presence? What about arming a country with a recent comedian as president?

And no, we are not allies with Ukraine. We are friendly and supportive but Ukraine is not a member of the EU or NATO, voluntarily.

 

[Tony B]

It wasn't a coup, and it wasn't propped up by either the EU or US. Hundreds of protesters died protesting against the Yanukovych government and its ties to Russia, and to have the total lack of respect, decency and honesty to portray their revolution and ousting of that government as a "coup" is disgusting.

You should be ashamed.

Clearly you're not familiar with the CIA and the false flag ops they and NATO love to operate (See Operation Gladio for details). You should be ashamed for such a cosmic level of naivety...qui bono...

 

[Tony B]

Yes yes, and the CIA mobilized millions of Ukrainian citizens to stand up against corruption and for democracy also, I bet?

Ukraine was slowly but surely moving towards EU cooperation and the Russians (aka Putin) didn't like that.

Euromaidan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yanukovych later explained to his entourage the decision was the result of an exchange with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had allegedly threatened to occupy Crimea and a sizable part of southeastern Ukraine, including the Donbas, if he signed the EU agreement.[154]
Ukraine and Russia | Ukraine On Fire 2016 Documentary | Russian Aggression or American Interference?


No. It's documented fact.

'allegedly' is now a fact? that's an interesting take.

The US isn't "my" government, btw.

So you're probably Canadian and have an equally appalling setup (as do we to be fair).

We are not talking about Lenin and Trotsky. We are talking about what happened from 2012 onwards in Ukraine.

I see, so not a lot of pattern recognition in your world then.

 

[Tony B]

It wasn't in conflict with Russia because it was effectively Russia's puppet country.

Like every Western country in thrall to the US? the difference being that Russia aren't interfering in Mexico or Canada.

As soon as Russia lost control over Ukraine, Crimea was quickly annexed.

The Crimea that is of vital strategic importance to Russia and is basically occupied by Russians?

Viktor Yanukovych even ran away to Russia.

I'm not disputing Russia had their man in Ukraine, Just like the US has their men all over the place, the point is that the USA is essentially asset stripping Ukraine and putting NATO right on the Russian border, despite old assurances this would never happen.