Who is saying the US is not involved? A significant chunk of the industrialized nations are involved. The US is providing material aid to Ukraine and I haven't seen people being shy about saying that.
The only people who benefit from continuing the war are those selling the armor: the captialists.
The lives of everyday Ukrainians will be better with a swift end to this tragedy. Once it's over, the can rebuild their communities and get back to life.
You seem to hate capitalists so much, you forget the freedom of the pressed people stricken by illegal invasion of their lands. Free yourself from hate and open your eyes. Your dogma limits you.
Yikes! I dunno about that. Sooner the war ends the better and protracted fighting kills Ukrainians and their communities. Strange there's a counter-point to this.
The quickest way for Ukraine to end the war would be to simply abandon their country. Are you suggesting that's what they do or do you acknowledge that when a foreign country steps foot on your soil with weapons and kills your people that defending that land is a reasonable course of action?
These aren't professional Roman legionaries. From what I've heard, Russian troops routinely murder, rape, and steal from civilians.
And Russia is not Rome. Russia is an oppressive dictatorship led by a homicidal madman who craves power and uses his people as cannon fodder without a second thought. If he conquers your town, he'll force you to fight and die to conquer the next town.
The new boss is not the same as the old boss, and that is why the Ukrainian people are fighting so hard to stop him.
You are twisting my words. I never asked that question in any way. My question was very clear: do you seriously believe that the best course of action when invaded by a hostile country is to flee and give them whatever they want since that would end the conflict as soon as possible? Please do not twist my words again to dodge the question.
We seen to disagree here. believe the best thing a leader can do when invaded is protect the lives of as many people who the leader is responsible for as possible.
Depends on if the invaders plan to genocide the people or not. The threat of genocide should influence a leader to fight. The cost of genocide outweighs lives lost in conflict.
So if Ukraine invades Russia and threatens to commit genocide then Russia should just flee and give them as much territory as they want right?
Edit: excuse me, I misread your comment. That's my fault. Let me rephrase. If Ukraine invades Russia without intending to commit genocide then Russia should flee and give them as much land as they want right?
You said that if the invader intends to commit genocide that that should influence the leader of the country being invaded to fight, right? That implies that if the invader does NOT intend to commit genocide that you shouldn't fight, you should instead flee, correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth here so correct me if I'm wrong please. Do you think they should fight in either case or am I understanding you correctly in that they should run if there is no threat of genocide?
It doesn't imply that. Fight if you can successfully defend or there is genocide. Ukraine's ability to successfully defend is dependent on foreigners and that's a risky position to be in. That is, gambling the lives of your people on the goodwill of foreigners.
First of all, if you didn't mean to imply it that's one thing, but it is clear to me that "Depends on if the invaders plan to genocide the people or not. The threat of genocide should influence a leader to fight. The cost of genocide outweighs lives lost in conflict." implies that whether or not you should fight an invading force "depends" on the threat of genocide. The word depends in this context means that the outcome will be different if there is or is not genocide. So let's not say that you DIDN'T imply it because you did. Misspeaking is fine, misrepresenting what you said after the fact is disingenuous and reduces your credibility in my eyes which makes it harder for me to engage in a meaningful way with you.
Now that we've established that you believe that fighting back against a hostile invading force is a reasonable course of action you have moved the goal posts back to claim that while fighting back (which Ukraine is doing) is fine, the fact that you view them as dependent on foreign countries to support their ability to fight means that they shouldn't fight back? Clearly it isn't a gamble since Ukraine has been successfully defending for nearly a year and a half. Of course they are also losing lives in the war, but not only are they losing lives at a FAR lower rate than Russia, but even in your perfect hypothetical where a country is invaded by a hostile force and can successfully defend without receiving any aid from any outside sources, they will still lose lives in that successful defense.
obviously, a sooner end would be better, but that's not going to happen until Russia ends its illegal invasion and leaves Ukraine. It's purely up to Russia to leave, and nobody but Russia is to blame for drawing out this war by refusing to end their illegal invasion.
So, Russia needs to fuck off and leave. Until they do, it's 100% their fault for every bad thing that happens as a consequence of their illegal invasion.
fighting kills Ukrainians and their communities
more Russians than Ukrainians, and the Ukranians will gladly die for their freedom from fascist Russian invasion. As they should.
ok.... maybe we do. I'm not a capitalist, since you didn't bother to ask, but it doesn't have ANY bearing on this conversation. The economic system of a nation has zero bearing on whether it's right or wrong to invade another sovereign nation for the purpose of taking it over. THAT is what Russia is doing to Ukraine (and both are capitalist, btw). That's why Russia is wrong and should be resisted.
i'll tell you what he'd do: he'd fashion the biggest whip the world has ever seen and whip the everliving daylights out of a lot of very bad people. than he'd make them pay their taxes, lol!
The silver lining is that when someone tells me they're religious, I know to be wary of them. Sure they could possibly be fine people, but they could also want their god to torture you for all eternity after you die just for not conforming to their world view. World lot those types, better to steer clear of them I say.
it's hard to know what you're getting with a religious person other than the fact that there's some part of them - perhaps a big part - that is both irrational and cannot be reasoned with. In my experience, that makes them unpredictable and often dangerous.
with the religious, one can only know two things: they hold irrational and false beliefs based on myth and which defy reality, and that some part of them - perhaps a large part - cannot be reasoned with. In my experience, this makes religious people both unpredictable and dangerous.
People give me shit on this but the more I look at their behavior over the decades, I have trouble recognizing them as anything but reactionary elements of a revolution at best and genuine far right ideology at worst. They constantly engage in idolization, power worship, subjugation of outside groups for the in-group, racism, nationalism, and all that other fun stuff. They can wave flags around as much as they like but aesthetics are just that, aesthetics
I very much agree with you. "Tankie" is a slur for a reason; they're not rational radicals, they're fascist-adjacent authoritarians who prefer a different aesthetic
I never did buy the whole pee tape thing. Trump shrugged off publicly saying how he sexually abused women just before getting elected president. There's no level of shame that can affect someone with no conscience.
To me it's much simpler - the Russians own his ass, literally. They bailed him out when he was going bankrupt in the '80s, and he's been beholden to them ever since.
wow, i'd actually forgotten about the pee tape thing since it happened 400 years ago(in pandemic years, lol). I'm not sure that I ever believed it for any other reason than simply because it sounded like some petty bullshit he would do-- hire hookers to pee on him in a bed once used by Obama. Or, not even on him, but just on the empty bed himself while he watched because he is just so very petty. And the Russians would never bother with such a tape because it would have become worthless the instant the world knew that neither would Trump be ashamed of such a tape becoming public nor would the world be shocked by it. Hardly "kompromat" when everyone already knows what a scumbag the guy is.
so, is the tape real? maybe, but I just don't care.
Putin’s behavior is not marxist or communist. He’s a mob boss. A fascist dictator.
This. I can't fathom why a community of self-described Marxists would have any love for the man. Marxism is about empowering the working class. The only person Putin empowers is himself.
Add comment