this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
1147 points (97.0% liked)
World News
32508 readers
917 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Russia can't be accepted back into the international community until Putin is in a jail cell or in the ground.
While I'd like to believe this, if Putin comes to some peaceful agreement with Ukraine, the international community will just wait until people are distracted by the next big news story and then let Putin back in.
I'd rather be cynical and happily surprised than optimistic and disappointed.
Actually likely not, he's been building international relations similarly to the Russian criminal code of behavior, and while it's sad that even Americans and Europeans would consider this kinda acceptable, now he's shown himself to be weak and humiliated. In other words, of the lower caste, and simply said, a pidor.
So no, he won't be let back in. But some other (in appearances mostly, not in essence) government in Russia may.
isn't that some kind of Turkish pizza?
I tried to look it up, I am only finding that it is a slur used to call people gay when they may or not be. U.S. equivalent seems to be like saying "Suck a dick, fag!" With pidor being the word at the end that would be shunned for being said.
I halted on submitting this over and over because I feel like I am going to get downvoted for using that term even to define a word/usecase. (Then I remembered the points don't matter and intent changes context)
Well, in Russian it's a swear word meaning a faggot, which refers to prison hierarchy.
Of course. They're white.
"my genociders are good, your genociders are bad". Whataboutism at its best. Lovely.
The ccp is not China.
I mean, by that logic we might as well dump everyone who's started a major land war recently into the ground.
Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan... ah fuck, eh?
Sure let's do it
Actually tho
US is still there though, being at the source of the death of 4.5 Millions humans since 2003! (washington post article).
What about, what about, what about
And? Should we not point hypocricy and double standards because it hurts your feelings?
This isn't hypocrisy or a double standard. Your argument is unironically "because America did bad things we must let bad things happen everywhere."
No one here is saying America smells like roses. Does that mean we can't try to do good? Must we stand idle and let Ukrainians die when we could help them?
/u/sndmn@lemmy.ca
Veraticus
NO, idiot (sorry, sometime, let's call a cat, a cat). Your "community" would have no sense and credibility as they still have one of the biggest warmonger at their table. This is not a stupid "whataboutism" argument that you are all blindly paroting! So sndmn@lemmy.ca's comment is stupid.
We, european, should not supply UA and follow USA's plan in their proxy war. We should instead really work on a diplomatic level. BUT by playing the stupid rats we are, Putin has not reason to listen.
No tankie, no Putin-sucker, i'm just plain rational and honest dude.
No… you’re a tankie and Putin sucker 🙂
Who here said "we must let bad things happen"?
The commenter you replied to just mentioned that if we are outraged at Russia, we should be even more outraged at the US, and since a much longer time. But Ukraine and Russia are the only issues most hypocrites with double standards speak about. Say any criticism of the west and they lash out like is happening right here.
Because criticism of the west is totally irrelevant to the question. It’s not even whataboutism; it’s absurdity. Even if the west is literally Satan incarnate, why does that mean we have to let Putin wage whatever war of aggression he desires?
The people who advance this argument are so anti-US they’ve become dictator simps. I think it’s good to shove the absurdity of their positions back in their faces.
Did you miss the very first sentence of my comment where I said:
And the whole rest of the comment that refutes your claim that we "have to let Putin wage whatever war of aggression he desires"?
Please take the time to read it again, because your points were already addressed.
Nothing in your comment refuted anything. Be as angry as you want at America; it has nothing to do with anything Putin is doing in Ukraine. It isn’t even whataboutism, as I said before. It’s just absurdity.
I pointed at the exact sentence that refuted what you said. You kept responding to whatever I didn't say. If you're not addressing what I said in my comment, you're just talking to yourself. I'll stop replying until you address me directly. Enjoy talking to yourself.
No, it's pointing out a precedent set by the USA and allies that wholesale slaughter of innocents is acceptable to the international community. Russia's invasion, whether legitimate or not, is no more spurious in its reasons than so many of the USA's ones over the last how ever many decades.
That doesn't make this one right, it just points out that the "rules based order" is a falsehood. Otherwise every US president in recent to not so recent history would also have an arrest warrant out for them, and the US would be sanctioned into the ground.
I generally have a hard time believing the US intends to do good outside of padding the pockets of corporate lobbyists and politicians. I'm not a fan of the whole "until the last Ukrainian" war that's happening either.
This seems totally unrelated to my point.
Even if this is true, we can still try to do the right thing. And we should try.
You said the other commenter's point seemed to be 'because America did bad things we must let bad things happen'. That wasn't their point, at least not to my reading of it. I read it as trying to highlight the hypocrisy of the international community, which usually means the USA and associated countries.
None of this is to excuse the war in Ukraine, but if the international community is to mean anything, and to have any legitimacy, it needs to apply the rules across the board. Since it doesn't mean anything beyond what is good for the US/corporate interests, the rules have not, and will not be applied evenly.
The US is not trying to do the right thing, it is trying to advance it's interests in the region at the expense of Russia, and unfortunately for Ukrainians at the expense of them too, even if it benefits Ukraine as a state. The fact that the US can wage so many destructive wars that are later acknowledged as mistakes and still be seen as trying to do the right thing shows how effective the propaganda arm of the country is.
But who cares if the US is trying to advance its interests in the region? Again, Russia is waging an unjust war of territorial aggression against Ukraine. That’s wrong and immoral on the face of it and should be resisted. If the US is willing to intervene, I honestly don’t care if they achieve strategic objectives on the side. I am interested in opposing imperialism, which, in this case, the US is doing.
Ok, fair enough. But the achieving strategic objectives isn't on the side, it's the primary aim. People can see that and still support the US supporting Ukraine, but it seems so many people just think that the US are 'the good guys'. They aren't. No one is. The Ukrainian government aren't the good guys, stopping people from leaving the country and forcing them to fight, and honouring Bandera and Azov. The Russian government aren't the good guys, conscripting their own citizens to fight people they say are their brothers, and their denazifying rhetoric might have had some pull if they didn't trade back those very Nazis after Azovstahl. The US government and the collective west aren't the good guys, supplying just enough weaponry to keep Ukraine in the fight, then upping support when it looks bad.
Also, going back to my talk about precedents set by the USA, this sets a precedent for other countries to overtly arm, fund, train, and supply intelligence to their direct opponents in any if their future aggressive wars. If the counterargument to that is, 'well, they can try, but we will fuck them up,' then we are in might makes right territory, which is more or less how the US currently operates, but clearly not ideal.
But this has been true of conflicts in the modern era before now. Hand-wringing about this one in particular seems extremely selective to me. But, you do you.
Well, I'm not just hand-wringing about this particular conflict. We are in a thread about this conflict and I am trying to explain my viewpoint on why bringing up the warcrimes of the US and allies is not simply whataboutism.
But the United States did not carpet bomb half of the Middle East like Russia is doing to Ukraine. The United States did not level Baghdad, or Kabul. Last time I checked both of those cities were still standing.
Do you want to talk about what aboutism? Go look at The destruction of Aleppo. That was done by the Assad regime with the backing of Russia. The United States never inflicted that level of destruction anywhere close to the scale of that war which has killed over 600,000 people.
https://youtu.be/n9cDP-UdP3E?si=_qWJYgdxvZR61X4X
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/n9cDP-UdP3E?si=_qWJYgdxvZR61X4X
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
What? When the US attacked Iraq they obliterated the infrastructure with air strikes. Electricity was almost completely out for weeks and wasn't fully repaired for years. Water treatment failed because of the lack of electricity, causing epidemics. Lots of other civilian shit got struck as well. Iraqi infrastructure got fucked way worse than Ukraine's.
Are you serious?
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
No it didn't level Baghdad or Kabul. It did level Fallujah. Russia hasn't leveled Kyiv. It has leveled Mariupol.
It isn't just the US, the issue is that it is all backed and supported by its allies, including my country. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, not to mention the previous wars the international community has been involved in. There are still extrajudicial killings using drones, which would be considered terrorism if done the the US or allies.
No, you shouldn't do it because it's stupid. If you had real arguments you would use them, but you don't, so instead you trot out this garbage. It's a sign of intellectual weakness and dishonesty.
If it really was such a bad and stupid argument, why can't you address it? Spending paragraphs telling me an argument is bad without actually addressing it screens entitlement and incompetence to me.
Where did I "[spend] paragraphs telling [you] an argument is bad"?
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Maybe you've mistaken me for someone else.
I used a few short and simple sentences to explain why your position is crap. That's it.
Sorry to see you downvoted, but in ukraine topics you can't have any other opinion then West=Good or you are a Putin apologist. We are back at cold war red scare disscusion levels, no nuace is allowed.
Paywalled article, meh doesn’t count.
Most of those actual deaths were Muslims killing Muslims. Deaths caused by United States soldiers are comparatively low.
For example, the Iraqi body count website tracks 210,000 civilians killed between 2003 and 2020.
According to your article, it cites US-led wars in countries such as Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Syria. However, the United States did not launch a war in any of those countries and certainly did not fight a war in Pakistan which is a US ally.
The Washington Post article as well as research from Brown University has Lucy affiliated anyone who has died outside of the expected peacetime death rate in any country in Africa in the Middle East to be attributable to the United States which is, frankly completely unfair. ISIL aka the Islamic State for instance killed tens of thousands of people, yet those deaths are attributed to the United States. Which is completely crazy!
While I was completely against the 2003 Iraq war, and even March and protest against it, the truth of the matter is that Saddam was a complete bastard, the bath is party were fascist, and destroying them created enormous power vacuum which resulted in chaos death and destruction. However, this was probably an inevitability Saddam wasn't going to last forever and had no system of governance to transfer leadership to someone else. The Middle East has been well known for centuries as a chaotic and violent region of the world and Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been at war with each other since time immemorial.
Maybe take a good look at that last paragraph you wrote and think about why you blame the conflicts in the middle east on a reductive basis of "they are savages" rather than looking at the actual historical context of what has caused instability in the region.
Seriously, this entire comment is just a racist write-off of the middle east that is completely devoid of any true consideration of history. Ignorance personified.
Who was it that was selling Saddam sarin gas and anthrax again?