You’re right, they should just roll over and accept Russian domination.
Their comment, of course, was overly simplistic. I’m sure what they meant was “then why are they protesting action that will end the war in Ukraine’s favor faster”.
If you only care about blindly ending war as soon as possible by any means necessary, you definitely have two major options. Either let the aggressor do whatever they want, or use overwhelming force to utterly destroy them.
If you only care about blindly ending war as soon as possible by any means necessary, you definitely have two major options. Either let the aggressor do whatever they want, or use overwhelming force to utterly destroy them.
Except this is assuming that the US is omnipotent. The US cannot use overwhelming force to defeat Russia in the conflict. That leaves only not supplying arms to reduce the length of the war and casualties.
Ah, whataboutism, the first recourse of the desperate to appear neutral.
The US military industrial complex, and the politicians who serve it, have a lot to answer for. Keeping Ukrainians from being overrun by wannabe world dominators is not one of them.
Your principle seems to be pointing fingers at the big boys while you let the small fries die in trenches, begging for help that will never come because “It’s just not right for the US to do things!”
Whataboutism isn’t a logical fallacy(and claiming it is was first used to defend British colonial violence) also if it was what I was doing wasn’t whataboutism, it was questioning the motives of the person providing aid.
Your principle seems to be pointing fingers at the big boys while you let the small fries die in trenches, begging for help that will never come because “It’s just not right for the US to do things!”
Continuing the war so more people die isn’t helping. War is a racket, it is always a racket.
Wouldn’t providing Ukraine with more weapons extend the war? Their latest offensive shows they’re running on fumes.
You’re right, they should just roll over and accept Russian domination.
Their comment, of course, was overly simplistic. I’m sure what they meant was “then why are they protesting action that will end the war in Ukraine’s favor faster”.
If you only care about blindly ending war as soon as possible by any means necessary, you definitely have two major options. Either let the aggressor do whatever they want, or use overwhelming force to utterly destroy them.
Which is your preference?
Except this is assuming that the US is omnipotent. The US cannot use overwhelming force to defeat Russia in the conflict. That leaves only not supplying arms to reduce the length of the war and casualties.
So you prefer just letting aggressors do whatever they want, got it.
As anti-war as you or I may be, there’s more than enough petty dictators who are more than happy to be pro-war and fuck up the world.
I dont have that principle, I think there are cases when you should and when you shouldn’t.
I’m more concerned about the US. Why is biggest kid on the block when it comes to genocide and war so enthusiastic to supply Ukraine with arms?
Especially given operation AERODYNAMIC by the cia…
Ah, whataboutism, the first recourse of the desperate to appear neutral.
The US military industrial complex, and the politicians who serve it, have a lot to answer for. Keeping Ukrainians from being overrun by wannabe world dominators is not one of them.
Your principle seems to be pointing fingers at the big boys while you let the small fries die in trenches, begging for help that will never come because “It’s just not right for the US to do things!”
Whataboutism isn’t a logical fallacy(and claiming it is was first used to defend British colonial violence) also if it was what I was doing wasn’t whataboutism, it was questioning the motives of the person providing aid.
Continuing the war so more people die isn’t helping. War is a racket, it is always a racket.
Good thing pretty much every western country is supporting Ukraine’s defensive war effort.
Nobody expects the US to be the sole support for Ukraine.
How is that going?