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'.
The Azov battalion has killed from 13,000 upwards of ethnic Russians. It is still continuing in the midst of current events. Ethnic Russians have fled the Donbass for Russia on account of this. This has been going on since the 2014 coup that put the neo-Nazis in the driver's seat. Even now, a Ukrainian Duma deputy has charged the neo-Nazis in Mariupol to surrender and lay down their arms. Or they will be hunted down by the Chechen troops and shot like dogs. There is no fantasy about any of this.
But, since you are asking, it was false claims of genocide ("ethnic cleansing") that the U.S. used to bomb Serbia, so what would be your problem with that as a justification? (Let us consider real claims of ethnic cleansing, which is what is going on in the Donbass, and stop thought experiments.)
The morality does not care about the size of the foe. Go ahead and take down a grizzly bear hand-to-hand. I'll get popcorn and watch. You obviously were incapable of absorbing my point that moral righteousness does not grant a prophecy of success. We have to pick our fights out of prudential considerations. You may enjoy a prospect of suicide, but we part ways on that one.
I'll be glad if you don't sneer.
Putin isn't Hitler, in case you haven't noticed. And the Austrian Germans did not need saving, nor did he claim they did. And they were happy to be brought into the Reich, as you mention. This is a parallel that doesn't go anywhere. Analogies are useful for explanations, but they have no standing as an argument. The republics of Luhansk and Donetsk were formed for the purpose of isolating the inhabitants (mostly ethnic Russians) from the genocidal actions of the Ukrainian central government.
The Ukrainians are essentially finished as a military entity. A 4 March internal assessment of the Ukrainian government estimated 70% of the Ukrainian armed forces were either destroyed, captured, or out of action, and that the Russians were in control of 40% of Ukrainian territory. What is going on now is not warfare, so much as demilitarization (destruction of all military capability), denazification (hunting down the neo-Nazi militias and liquidating them), and bringing the cities under humanitarian control. This requires fighting to dislodge the Ukrianian army and militias from their hiding places among the civilians. Use of human shields is a specific war crime that Zelensky is guilty of and the Russians have no culpability under international law for returning fire on any attack.
You don't think any of this is true? Then time will tell. It was only days ago that the biological laboratories were a "conspiracy theory." That didn't age so well when Victoria Nuland admitted their existence in sworn testimony to the Senate and stated that steps should be taken to prevent the Russians from gaining access to deadly pathogens.
As we have observed so many times on this board, the evildoers project their actions on others---and project others' actions on themselves. The popular media blitz that Ukraine is kicking Russia's ass is utterly laughable, and Putin is probably doing most of the laughing. He knows the globalists in the West have a huge vested interest in their Ukrainian playground not being exposed and they will concoct any lie to serve their purpose. The news out of Ukraine drips with falsehood. There is no "Ghost of Kyiv" guarding the air. The garrison on Snake Island was not killed to a man---they all surrendered. The "Russian tank" that drove over a car was really a Ukrainian tank that went out of control.
You seem to be debating things that I haven't said. Regurgitating Putin talking points really does not further the point. As it seems to be the case as of late, there is no room for nuance among the polarized.
Russia doesn't get to shell apartment buildings and shoot up grandma and grandpa in a civilian vehicle, and then claim the city is under 'humanitarian' control. If the mission was humanitarian, Ukraine citizens would welcome Russian forces, clearly that's not the case. It's laughable.
My point is that neither side has clean hands. The fact that Russia is moving past Luhansk and Donetsk, proves that it's not about those territories.
If you claim to have a moral authority to invade Ukraine, that falls apart when you give a pass to China.
We can cheer on the destruction of biolabs but that doesn't justify the invasion of a sovereign nation. Ultimately, the enemy of my enemy does not make them my friend. I think that gets lost, even among Q followers.
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'.
The Azov battalion has killed from 13,000 upwards of ethnic Russians. It is still continuing in the midst of current events. Ethnic Russians have fled the Donbass for Russia on account of this. This has been going on since the 2014 coup that put the neo-Nazis in the driver's seat. Even now, a Ukrainian Duma deputy has charged the neo-Nazis in Mariupol to surrender and lay down their arms. Or they will be hunted down by the Chechen troops and shot like dogs. There is no fantasy about any of this.
But, since you are asking, it was false claims of genocide ("ethnic cleansing") that the U.S. used to bomb Serbia, so what would be your problem with that as a justification? (Let us consider real claims of ethnic cleansing, which is what is going on in the Donbass, and stop thought experiments.)
The morality does not care about the size of the foe. Go ahead and take down a grizzly bear hand-to-hand. I'll get popcorn and watch. You obviously were incapable of absorbing my point that moral righteousness does not grant a prophecy of success. We have to pick our fights out of prudential considerations. You may enjoy a prospect of suicide, but we part ways on that one.
I'll be glad if you don't sneer.
Putin isn't Hitler, in case you haven't noticed. And the Austrian Germans did not need saving, nor did he claim they did. And they were happy to be brought into the Reich, as you mention. This is a parallel that doesn't go anywhere. Analogies are useful for explanations, but they have no standing as an argument. The republics of Luhansk and Donetsk were formed for the purpose of isolating the inhabitants (mostly ethnic Russians) from the genocidal actions of the Ukrainian central government.
The Ukrainians are essentially finished as a military entity. A 4 March internal assessment of the Ukrainian government estimated 70% of the Ukrainian armed forces were either destroyed, captured, or out of action, and that the Russians were in control of 40% of Ukrainian territory. What is going on now is not warfare, so much as demilitarization (destruction of all military capability), denazification (hunting down the neo-Nazi militias and liquidating them), and bringing the cities under humanitarian control. This requires fighting to dislodge the Ukrianian army and militias from their hiding places among the civilians. Use of human shields is a specific war crime that Zelensky is guilty of and the Russians have no culpability under international law for returning fire on any attack.
You don't think any of this is true? Then time will tell. It was only days ago that the biological laboratories were a "conspiracy theory." That didn't age so well when Victoria Nuland admitted their existence in sworn testimony to the Senate and stated that steps should be taken to prevent the Russians from gaining access to deadly pathogens.
As we have observed so many times on this board, the evildoers project their actions on others---and project others' actions on themselves. The popular media blitz that Ukraine is kicking Russia's ass is utterly laughable, and Putin is probably doing most of the laughing. He knows the globalists in the West have a huge vested interest in their Ukrainian playground not being exposed and they will concoct any lie to serve their purpose. The news out of Ukraine drips with falsehood. There is no "Ghost of Kyiv" guarding the air. The garrison on Snake Island was not killed to a man---they all surrendered. The "Russian tank" that drove over a car was really a Ukrainian tank that went out of control.
You seem to be debating things that I haven't said. Regurgitating Putin talking points really does not further the point. As it seems to be the case as of late, there is no room for nuance among the polarized.
Russia doesn't get to shell apartment buildings and shoot up grandma and grandpa in a civilian vehicle, and then claim the city is under 'humanitarian' control. If the mission was humanitarian, Ukraine citizens would welcome Russian forces, clearly that's not the case. It's laughable.
My point is that neither side has clean hands. The fact that Russia is moving past Luhansk and Donetsk, proves that it's not about those territories.
If you claim to have a moral authority to invade Ukraine, that falls apart when you give a pass to China.
We can cheer on the destruction of biolabs but that doesn't justify the invasion of a sovereign nation. Ultimately, the enemy of my enemy does not make them my friend. I think that gets lost, even among Q followers.