27
"Violence is never the answer" unless it is white people doing it (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
141 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27603744

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 months ago (36 children)

So they didn't invade? You can call them Nazis all you like but let's live in reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (35 children)

    Germany was a Nazi state and they got invaded, whats your point

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (25 children)

    After they invaded many other nations beforehand?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Good, so we agree that simply being invaded does not suddenly put a government on the right side of history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (9 children)

    There's a bit of a difference between a punch to the face and a punch to the face in return. Or are we going to pretend these are the same thing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

    We're not talking about a bar fight dude, we're talking about eight years of ethnic cleansing and the threat of being nuked within minutes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I hear the best way to prevent being nuked is turning a cold war into a hot war.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    The best way to avoid being nuked is to ensure those interested in nuking you don't have first strike capabilities no matter the cost.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    no matter the cost

    I did not expect to find a supporter of the US bombing of Iran in this discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    I wish I knew as little as you about world events. Iran had a fatwa against nuclear weapons the idea of them trying to make them was as true as Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    Iran had a fatwa against nuclear weapons

    That part is entirely true! However, as you are certainly aware, given your immense knowledge about world events, many country leaders have previously said one thing and done a different thing. From the publicly available data I can gather, Iran was not complying with international agreements they had ratified regarding enrichment limits up to about 2015. Given the publicly available information, I am willing to believe that Iran actually did not further their nuclear weapons program under JCPOA between 2015 and 2018. I don't believe there is much doubt that they have since picked their nuclear weapons program back up; at the very least after the US re-introduced sanctions.

    On a side note tying this back to the original discussion: Ukraine did have nuclear weapons and gave them up only under broad guarantees of continued independence... so... yeah.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Ukraine did have nuclear weapons and gave them up only under broad guarantees of continued independence… so… yeah.

    I wonder what country has a history of not only using nuclear weapons but using "allied" (vassal nations) on the borders of competing nations to host their arsenal to threaten first strike capability. Might want to look into what actually caused the "Cuban" missile crisis. American nukes in Turkey threating first strike capability and the breakdown of MAD.

    Also your Iran strawman was fucking stupid and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it. It was completely unrelated to what I said, even if Iran developed nuclear weapons they wouldn't have first strike capability on the US so it isn't relevant to doing whatever necessary to frustrate those attempting to destroy MAD by achieving first strike capability.

    so... yeah...

    Also also pointing out what is logical for a force to do in the face of certain situations doesn't mean I support it and especially doesn't mean I generally support any other force taking related but different actions. Really reminding me why I hate deabtebros.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Great. I also don't love any country having nukes, so there's already two of us. I was well aware that your point was not about Iran, that's why I made the cynical counterpoint I made.

    I'm also aware of the history of the Cuban missile crisis and fully agree with your analysis of who's to blame for escalating and for de-esalating the situation. Serious question 1: Can you point me to any credible sources that the US was about to place nukes in Ukraine in 2022? I can only find statements by some Ukrainian government officials in 2021-2022 that they want NATO membership or develop their own nukes, but no affirmation by any of the Western nuclear powers and no indication that they wanted both. That also happened long after Russia had invaded Ukrainian territory in 2014 and under continued intimidation of Ukraine by Russia. Serious question 2: Can you point me to statements by NATO officials indicating they want to nuke Russia or Russian positions on occupied Ukrainian territory? Because Putin has made several rather thinly veiled nuclear threats over the last 4 years.

    Edit: Iran is far away from the US, but it's very close to many US allies. Russia, too, has nukes outside its borders (Belarus), and was openly considering to expand that list, though the US is admittedly way bigger in that regard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Great. I also don’t love any country having nukes, so there’s already two of us.

    I think it has been proven repeatedly by the US that if you wish to truly be sovereign nukes are non-negotiable which is a great tragedy. (Libya, Venezuela, Iraq, Yemen, etc.)

    I was well aware that your point was not about Iran, that’s why I made the cynical counterpoint I made.

    Your cynical counterpoint was still stupid as it was about a related but entirely different situation. A country having nukes and being able to bypass MAD are 2 vastly different scenarios.

    As for your second paragraph it's all irrelevant to the point at hand which is that if there is a risk of a country (especially one with a history of attempting to) bypassing MAD against you frustrating that attempt by any means necessary is the logical step to take.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (13 children)

    Ukraine has also invaded Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and you are perfectly fine with that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

    ??? When?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (11 children)

    The invasion of Iraq started in the early 00s.
    Ukraine had troops in Syria, helping DAESH at least in 2024.
    NATO's current invasion of Iran (which Ukraine participates in) started early this year.

    If you actually opposed invasions, you would have called for Ukraine to be punished.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (10 children)

    TIL they had 6000 troops in the Iraq invasion.

    You don't need to convinced me that Ukraine is not innocent in any capacity. Hell, you can even punish and deter in some capacities. You are not going to convince me those crimes amount to the need to have a full scale irridentist invasion that has killed so many people in both countries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (9 children)

    So, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state's border?

    Also, I can't help but notice that you still use the "FULL SCALE INVASION" propaganda that the people that sold you on Iraq's WMDs want you to regurgitate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

    The US and Ukraine are different countries?

    Also is it not? Russia is doing America shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

    The US and Ukraine are different countries?

    The latter is a de facto subject of the former.

    Also is it not? Russia is doing America shit.

    So, responding to NATO's aggression is the same as NATO constantly invading everywhere?
    Also, again, the “FULL SCALE INVASION” is very obvious pro-NATO propaganda.

    Going to ask my question again, since I did not get an answer:
    what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts to amass weapons and troops on that state’s border?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    Get your own troops there and chill.

    Also maybe not do things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you're trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.

    Those troops seem to have been needed. Wild.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

    Get your own troops there and chill.

    So, you agree with Russia's actions to get their own troops there, then.

    Also maybe not so things like take a whole peninsula of that other country. They might think you’re trying to take more and get weapons and troops to defend themselves.

    You mean the thing that NATO partially managed in the Korean peninsula? Honestly not sure what you are trying to refer to here.

    Those troops seem to have been needed. Wild.

    Yeah, Russian troops do seem to have been needed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    Who did the special military operation, Ukraine or Russia?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    So, you renege on saying that a state should put its troops where NATO starts amassing them in order to prevent the latter? If you do, what do you think such a state should do instead?

    Also, NATO had been pushing for war with Russia, not the other way around. So, you got what you wanted. Not sure what you are upset about (other than having your ass kicked).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Please point back to the part of my conversation where I advocated for war in any capacity. Literally quite the opposite unlike yourself here.

    I think having troops ready, especially when the west is involved. Great. Smart even. As soon you're using them to start wars and attempt to take land from another country and their people, sorry, it's wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Please point back to the part of my conversation where I advocated for war in any capacity. Literally quite the opposite unlike yourself here.

    You said here that the aggrieved state should put its own troops to where the most prolific invaders tries to amass their own:

    Get your own troops there and chill.

    Which is what Russia has been doing.

    If you meant that they should place their troops somewhere else, then you should explain how that is supposed to stop the most prolific invader in the world from acting to harm said state.

    Also, your suggestion evidently fails miserably in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

    I think having troops ready, especially when the west is involved. Great. Smart even. As soon you’re using them to start wars and attempt to take land from another country and their people, sorry, it’s wrong.

    The war was started by NATO.
    I am still waiting for a serious suggestion for what a state should do in the face of aggression from the most prolific invader in the world. Notably, not doing anything and just letting the most prolific invader in the world do whatever it wants is not a serious suggestion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Oh actually I have an answer. Russia should nuke the United States and Ukraine.

    They are the most prolific invader and very dangerous. This is a serious suggestion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    After they started a world war and killed millions. Ever heard of the Holocaust?

    Not really a comparison.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    Ever heard of the ethnic cleansing of the Donbas? The fact that the UKR regime's attempt at a Holocaust was stopped at "only" a few thousand ethnic Russians does not make them magically not Nazis, nor does it change the perscription.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It is nonetheless cometely different than the juatification against Nazi Germany you made.

    And the fact that you are doubleing down on that bad comparision shows how your post has seen any seld reflection.

    Again, comparing WW2 against the attack of russia agains ukrain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Actually I'm comparing world war 2, when a nazi army marched east through Ukraine to visit unspeakable racialized violence upon Russian people, to the Ukraine war, when a nazi army drove east through Ukraine to visit unspeakable racialized violence upon Russian peole.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    How many ethnic Russians have died in this war? I bet it's more than a few thousand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    How many ethnic Russian-Ukrainians died before 2022?

    It was around 14 thousand and and it started in 2014. History did not start in 2022.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Still way less than the war

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    That's the thing: we will never know how bad the Donbas war would have gotten if the Russia-Ukraine war hadn't kicked off. it completely changed the situation for everybody. If, for example, China had invaded the Zionist entity on October 9th 2023 and taken all the zionist's military resources away from targeting Palestinians, we could make the exact same argument because we wouldn't know how bad it would have gotten. Of course, we live in the world where we've now had three years to see exactly why other countries should have attacked Israel on October 9th. So, so many people would still be alive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    There aren't many alternatives worse than full scale war. Possibly a large scale genocide that then becomes a war, but this "what if" calculation can split both ways.

    Also let's be real, noble intentions are not what states operate on. That's the justification used to get someone like yourself on board with the violent invasion and theft of a sovereign country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent