Kitty Genovese problem: there's a murder being accomplished in plain sight on the sidewalk. Do we walk on by?
That's an oversimplification. In this case, the alleged murdered and victim had been trying to kill each other for years, the 'person walking by' has a historical beef with the alleged murderer, and has everything to gain, personally, by intervening, and has no right to be on the sidewalk in the first place.
Russia does not need to have clean hands if Ukraine has dirty hands
So therefore Russia has the "right" to invade the US for it's bioweapons production on Russia's borders, economic warfare and perceived historical conflict?
This is all perspective. One person's freedom fighters is anothers' rebel.
No. Russia (1) has the right to intervene and stop genocide...because the Ukraine has no right to commit genocide. By the way, "Russia" is not a person with a continuity of consciousness. Their ethnic relatives were/are the victims of the genocide. They were not "trying to kill each other for years." Russia (2) has the right to intervene and neutralize weapons of mass destruction while they are at it, since neither the Ukraine nor the U.S. was supposed to have any, by their own agreement to a treaty of prohibition. That was a good enough rationale for the U.S. to invade Iraq, halfway around the world. This is right across Russia's border.
Don't bother to stretch the case to absurd dimensions. It is not a matter of taste. The presence of genocide and bioweapons forfeit Ukraine's sovereignty. The killer of Kitty Genovese does not get to protest "Hey, I'm minding my own business. Get out of my space."
So, what's your position? Nobody has a right to intervene to stop genocide? We just get to stand around and watch it happen? Somehow that was not the U.S. position when it decided to bomb Serbia for alleged "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo.
As for China, if you want to go up against it, be my guest. I know better than to tackle someone bigger and stronger. Being in the right does not entail being suicidal. (Important point: deciding not to fight China is not a "moral pass" for China; it is just a recognition that this is not a fight one should get into today...because you might only succeed in being destroyed, and help no one.)
But in the end, all you can do is sneer. You can't rebut a logically moral position.
As for China, if you want to go up against it, be my guest. I know better than to tackle someone bigger and stronger. Being in the right does not entail being suicidal.
Just so I understand your "logically moral position", you think false claims of genocide give Russia an obligation to stop it (Kitty Genovese effect). But that morality doesn't extend to stronger foes?
That's not moral at all. Morals don't depend on whether an intervention would hurt or not. Morals, like principles, need to be applying equally, or they are by definition, unprincipled.
But in the end, all you can do is sneer.
Why is it impossible to have a debate on this board and maintain decorum. Note the rules: civil discussion only. No one is 'sneering'.
My point is this: The cheering on of Russia to 'save the ethnic Russians' in Ukraine, has no more merit that Hitler invading Austria to 'save the ethnic Germans'. In fact, many in Austria welcomed Hitler. The Ukrainians are fighting like hell. That alone should tell you if Russia is acting in it's own best interest or 'saving people from genocide'.
That's an oversimplification. In this case, the alleged murdered and victim had been trying to kill each other for years, the 'person walking by' has a historical beef with the alleged murderer, and has everything to gain, personally, by intervening, and has no right to be on the sidewalk in the first place.
So therefore Russia has the "right" to invade the US for it's bioweapons production on Russia's borders, economic warfare and perceived historical conflict?
This is all perspective. One person's freedom fighters is anothers' rebel.
No. Russia (1) has the right to intervene and stop genocide...because the Ukraine has no right to commit genocide. By the way, "Russia" is not a person with a continuity of consciousness. Their ethnic relatives were/are the victims of the genocide. They were not "trying to kill each other for years." Russia (2) has the right to intervene and neutralize weapons of mass destruction while they are at it, since neither the Ukraine nor the U.S. was supposed to have any, by their own agreement to a treaty of prohibition. That was a good enough rationale for the U.S. to invade Iraq, halfway around the world. This is right across Russia's border.
Don't bother to stretch the case to absurd dimensions. It is not a matter of taste. The presence of genocide and bioweapons forfeit Ukraine's sovereignty. The killer of Kitty Genovese does not get to protest "Hey, I'm minding my own business. Get out of my space."
And I'm the one stretching the case to "absurd dimensions"? Lol
Now do China.
So, what's your position? Nobody has a right to intervene to stop genocide? We just get to stand around and watch it happen? Somehow that was not the U.S. position when it decided to bomb Serbia for alleged "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo.
As for China, if you want to go up against it, be my guest. I know better than to tackle someone bigger and stronger. Being in the right does not entail being suicidal. (Important point: deciding not to fight China is not a "moral pass" for China; it is just a recognition that this is not a fight one should get into today...because you might only succeed in being destroyed, and help no one.)
But in the end, all you can do is sneer. You can't rebut a logically moral position.
There is no 'genocide'.
https://theconversation.com/putins-claims-that-ukraine-is-committing-genocide-are-baseless-but-not-unprecedented-177511
Just so I understand your "logically moral position", you think false claims of genocide give Russia an obligation to stop it (Kitty Genovese effect). But that morality doesn't extend to stronger foes?
That's not moral at all. Morals don't depend on whether an intervention would hurt or not. Morals, like principles, need to be applying equally, or they are by definition, unprincipled.
Why is it impossible to have a debate on this board and maintain decorum. Note the rules: civil discussion only. No one is 'sneering'.
My point is this: The cheering on of Russia to 'save the ethnic Russians' in Ukraine, has no more merit that Hitler invading Austria to 'save the ethnic Germans'. In fact, many in Austria welcomed Hitler. The Ukrainians are fighting like hell. That alone should tell you if Russia is acting in it's own best interest or 'saving people from genocide'.