155
11 arrested in protest at Sen. Bernie Sanders’s office over war in Ukraine
(www.washingtonpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
155 points (95.3% liked)
World News
32282 readers
653 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
THAT'S the war they choose to protest?
Turns out being anti-war protesters means they're ANTI WAR.
What do you want them to do? Raise funds to send some missles over?
Then why are they protesting action that will end the war faster?
You didn't answer the question.
You didn’t tell me what action will end the war faster, other going to the negotiating table. Ukraine is running out of bodies to throw into the meat grinder. This is a war of attrition, and the numbers are not in their favor.
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.
Personally I don't think there's any case where we should be telling other peoples to just accept their annexation or colonization. I'd be interested to hear the argument otherwise.
Because it defends American hegemony and weakens an anti-American state. It's not a hard question to answer. That doesn't mean it's not also the right thing to do regardless. Bad people can go good things for bad reasons. Unfortunately some seem to think the deaths of Ukrainians and pillaging of their land is a sacrifice worth making in order to geopolitically weaken America. I'm all for reducing America's global power, but I'm not so cruel as to choose other people's lives to trade for it against their will.
If Ukraine wants to defend itself, I think it's a good thing to air them in that; I also think making such invasions as difficult and expensive as possible is the anti-war position.
Idk I'm pretty anti-nationalist. People's material conditions and also not being dead matter more than imaginary lines on a map.
I mean that really should factor into it.
Fighting to the last Ukrainian kills more Ukrainians than allowing their government to sign a peace deal, or at least allowing their government to lose more quickly.
What do you mean by ukraine? Do you mean the government? The ukrainian population? Part of the ukrainian population?
This is unbelievably dishonest. You think the only material change is a redrawing of borders? C'mon now.
Not your choice to make. If they want to defend their land against unwarranted invasion, that's their choice. You don't get to decide what somebody else's life is worth.
Available information indicates a strong support of the defense effort among the Ukrainian populace.
Theyre both right wing states.
Conscription, + I'm not saying they can't, Im just saying it is going to get more people killed to further supply them.
Okay, but that can't be taken in ethnically russian areas and doesn't answer the question.
... Yeah? And? One is still worse than the other. For example, one of them repeatedly invades its neighbor. And it's still bad when one nation invades another as part of a land grab.
Conscription should be opposed in all cases, and unfortunately both sides use them in this war.
Actually, what gets people killed is invading other nations. The fact that you have accepted that as a foregone conclusion, and therefore saving lives requires the invaded people not fighting back, speaks volumes to your perspective. I don't accept this as a foregone conclusion. Russia should simply leave, and then people will stop dying.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
It did answer the question. I said Ukraine wants to defend itself; you asked what I meant by that, and I said the Ukrainian population overwhelmingly supports the defense efforts. Hence that is what I mean when I say "Ukraine wants to defend itself".
If you're not sure what "they can't survey the ethnically russian areas right now" means then you do not have the base of knowledge to have an informed opinion on the war. Don't mean to be a dick, but come on, this is literally basic stuff that colors the conflict.
You didn't say “they can’t survey the ethnically russian areas right now”. You said "that". I didn't know what you meant by "that". Not to mention the audacity to do this after asking what I meant by "Ukraine". You asked me to clarify something that was ambiguous and I did. I asked you to, and you seem to be using it as an excuse to quit the conversation.
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?
We've sent billions to Ukraine, seems to only have ended in more dead people and little progress.
So I'm gonna come over to your house and commandeer 2 bedrooms. You can't do anything about it, because that would be violent and non-productive. Thanks for the 2 bedrooms. I'm gonna shit on the carpet and in 10 years send my children to take the rest of your house. But again, you can't do anything because that would be violent and non-progressive.
Because you know, wouldn't want there to be any conflict or anything.
This is so brain dead. Let's frame using your idiocy.
Russia is a house. Ukraine is a house. USA is a house. Russia gave up on their project of building a workers' state and attempted to join the liberal capitalist world dominated by the USA. The USA sent economists to Russia's house. The economic reforms killed as many people as though Russia had been invaded.
Still, Russia wanted to join the USA's economic dominance. But, the USA had built a transnational nuclear military specifically to counter the Russian military. They staffed it with officers from the Third Reich. They built Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip, and Operation Aerodynamic. These operations grabbed the most violent bullies in the world and protected them, put them into houses neighboring Russia's house, and took the one's already there and gave them all weapons and training.
Still, Russia wanted to join the USA's economic dominance. They asked the USA to not expand NATO to its borders, sorry, to it's front lawn because that would be impossible for Russia to defend against. Russia was run by a stooge that the USA controlled. That stooge hand-picked Putin under USA guidance. Putin continued attempting to appease the USA despite it's bullying. Russia was trying to join NATO to ensure mutual security concerns could be discussed in committee instead of on the battle field.
The USA finally rejected Russia explicitly and kept training and arming bullies. Every time the HOA tried to ban the practice of glorifying the Nazi bullies in the neighborhood, the USA vetoed it.
The USA kept building more and more gangs and they kept building more supply lines and more weapons and more capabilities and finally tried to install those capabilities on Russia's front lawn. During this time, Russia escalated its readiness and it even took military action to prove that if the gangs kept coming they would react.
The gangs kept coming.
Russia reacted.
Your story has absolutely ZERO relevance to the actual history of the situation.
Stop trying to simplify geopolitics into interpersonal metaphors.
In your metaphor what is the billions in human killing machines that NATO et al supply to Ukraine? Who would be the thousands dead and families destroyed?
I'll stop simplifying geopolitics as soon as you recognize the right of the Ukrainian people to defend their land by whatever means is necessary. Every nation in the history of mankind has conscripted its citizens to aid in its defense. Russia will continue to take, and take, and take until someone shows them they cannot take freely any more. This anti-war absolutism is Russian propaganda designed to further their goals of illegal annexation of territory belonging to Ukraine.
You know what would have prevented that? Russia not invading Ukraine.
Yes, only Russia should send billions of dollars worth of human killing machines to Ukraine.
Clearly the solution is to escalate, sending MORE weapons! That can only possibly SAVE lives!
Yeah! Why can't they just roll over and die instead? Smh people fighting not to lose their homes or worse are so inconvenient to us. Sometimes we have to read about it and be upset! Absolutely unacceptable these people should care more about how they're making people on the internet feel and stop defending themselves so much. As someone that's entitled and privileged I surely know what is best for them.