Thread: The Ukraine Situation

Funny how those on the left see no problem with rioting when it suits their cause. Things are only wrong when those on the right do them.

But for the record, don't put words in my mouth. As pathetic as it is that the same hypocrites condemn the January 6th riots as insurrecrion approve of the George Floyd riots as social justice, don't assume for one second that I am as two faced as you. Riot and insurrection is wrong no matter the aisle, no matter the cause. In civilized society we have a method and a system to work through. Going outside those systems leads to anarchy and I for one condemn it as such.

Originally Posted by PaulFLUS

Funny how those on the left see no problem with rioting when it suits their cause. Things are only wrong when those on the right do them.

But for the record, don't put words in my mouth. As pathetic as it is that the same hypocrites condemn the January 6th riots as insurrecrion approve of the George Floyd riots as social justice, don't assume for one second that I am as two faced as you. Riot and insurrection is wrong no matter the aisle, no matter the cause. In civilized society we have a method and a system to work through. Going outside those systems leads to anarchy and I for one condemn it as such.

You are right in that it matters little when the method used turns to violence and property destruction. The difference is that with an insurrection there is an attempt to overthrow a government whereas a riot is a demonstration that has turned violent and destructive but not was not originated to overthrow a government. Insurrection is treason and a demonstration, even when it turns violent and destructive, is not treason. The two are not interchangeable. Any sensible person cannot condone either.

Bob

At least on that we agree but in fairness, it would take more than breaking into a building to overthrow the US government. I think disruption of the process was more the purpose.

Originally Posted by PaulFLUS

At least on that we agree but in fairness, it would take more than breaking into a building to overthrow the US government. I think disruption of the process was more the purpose.

They did far more than break into just any building, it was the US Capitol Building the supposed heart and soul of US democracy. I would also consider that they were there at the urging of Rump to try and overturn an election result so he could remain in power. To me that is pure and simple treason and far more heinous. Calling it a "disruption of purpose" is trying to sugar coat it.

Bob

Believe what you want to believe.

I wonder why the capital police are armed? They arent armed to protect the building or themselves obviously. Must be some other reason.

Well these last few posts showed exactly why 3 years have gone by with millions dead and wounded

Arguing over Jan 6th and the the Media driven hype over it is more important than Ukraine, I guess let them fight it out

I hope Trump gets the US out of the whole thing, obviously it ain't important

It has been suggested by conspiricists that the Vietnam war was prolonged because LBJ had croanies in the armaments industry. Not saying it's true just saying it's been suggested. Interesting though how sometimes the nutty ideas are correct. Like for instance that the Biden Admin. refused Spacex's offer to rescue the astronauts stranded on the space station for political reasons.I would not be at all surprised if this conflict in a far away place was allowed to continue when it could have been stopped for political and/or monetary reasons.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well these last few posts showed exactly why 3 years have gone by with millions dead and wounded

Arguing over Jan 6th and the the Media driven hype over it is more important than Ukraine, I guess let them fight it out

I hope Trump gets the US out of the whole thing, obviously it ain't important

Good point Glen and as important as civic debate is, sometimes we need to put that to the side when there are more pressing matters, like people dying needlessly in a conflict which has carried on far too long.

I think I'm going to regret participating in this one.

From our point of view this side of the ocean, the situation is quite bleak.
What is factual, is that prior to the conflict:
- Russia was menacing going to war because, mostly due to the influence of the US wanting missile defense closer to Russia, they felt NATO was encroaching on their breathing space
- Which, to everybody at the time, was just an excuse to continue what they started with Crimea, which was annexing the whole country

Different diplomats, from the US and the EU, parleyed with Putin at the time, and obtained guarantees up to 3 days before the start of the "special denazification operation" that Russia would not cross the border.

So from the start, Ukraine is basically fighting a proxy war on behalf of NATO and the western democracies. Which is why it was crucially important to help them.

The other point being missed in the whole debate is that Russia will not stop at Ukraine . And it does not stop with Russia and Ukraine.
Already Russia is eyeballing the next targets, which are Poland and Montenegro.
But the thing is, mark my words, if we collectively drop the ball and let Russia do its thing because we can't be bothered, then it's a safe bet Taiwan will be lost to China in the months after that. Which in turn gives China access to nuclear power at the same level as the US or Russia.
And that's altogether another jar of pickles. (That no further annexation can help with - the cat only needs to get out of the bag once)

It's not about who of Trump or Zelenski is the "best comedian turned dictator" as some would like to frame it, a battle of egos. It's neither a partisan thing, it's not a "that guy vs that guy" thing.
It's about a set of dominos that are going to come crashing like an avalanche.

It's about being there for the little guy who is stuck in a fight we asked him to fight for all of us (and yes, that covers both the EU and the US) against a whole gang while we give him the 2 by 4 or the lead pipe when he's getting cornered, and sipping margaritas.

It's about knowing that, as historical allies going back centuries, fighting together against that time worst oppressor, we can keep fighting the good fight together, because otherwise it's just letting the bullies rule the schoolyard.
It's about trust, mutual reliance. Is it perfect ? Never been, one way or the other. Never fair because war never is. But at least it kept a modicum of peace for decades.

It's not "he's right" or "he's wrong". It's about we win together, or we all lose.

And that also works about the "what" and the "how" of our democracies. Not the "who"
Chiefly, more and more the question asked is "who would you give the whole nation's power to", accompanied by the idea that such a person should concentrate all the power like in a military chain of command, because doing otherwise would be a form of weakness.
And that statement is true almost everywhere, here in France too.
It goes hand in hand with that absurd idea that a government cannot work if the executive and the legislative power do not belong to the same interests (which is the flawed rhetoric as to why the France is in a governance slump)
And by extension that the third power, the judiciary, should not be a counter-power, and should not interfere.
That's not how it works. The whole idea of separating powers is to create checks and balances. That's the social contract for democracies since the 18th century. Thoughtfully considered to maximize the power to the people at vast, and not concentrate it in the hands of the few.

The "who" doesn't matter. It's the "what", the "how", the "why" and also sometimes the "when".

My whole beef about the issue, is that everywhere we talk about the "who".

Here's hoping that I am not Cassandra and that I'm actually the dumb one here.

Sorry for the rant, just my two cents from this side of the pond.