It doesn't take much intelligence ...

[Donatello]

Maybe I'm [my commentary is] annoying because my worldview beats your worldview.

But, (some) points taken and like given.

My worldview beats your worldview? That's a debate?

 

[Questerr]

Of course the US did. Look, that’s geo politics in the US. I don’t think it’s any secret that the US seeks, and has sought, this kind of foreign policy. I mean, we’re not going to officially announce on CNN that’s what we’re doing, but destabilizing our adversaries, coercing or allowing them to make blunders, and outright overthrowing of foreign governments we or our financial interests don’t like is what we do.

I think the only valid argument against, is that if we didn’t (or didn’t have the power to) someone would be doing it to us.

Explain the action that the US did that forced the Russians to invade Ukraine.

 

[brianpatrick]

Explain the action that the US did that forced the Russians to invade Ukraine.

Nobody said force.

 

[Antiwar]

My worldview beats your worldview? That's a debate?

That's the score.

 

[Questerr]

Nobody said force.

So you agree Russia didn't have to invade Ukraine and instead chose to totally of their own volition?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Maybe I'm [my commentary is] annoying because my worldview beats your worldview.

But, (some) points taken and like given.

You have the right to use this website however you want so long as you follow the rules, but if your intent is to persuade others that your view is correct, his advice is actually quite helpful. In fact, it's the best advice anyone has given you.

Also, I can't help but notice the following: if a state acted like you do personally to others on here, that state would be the principal cause of war and general strife.

 

[brianpatrick]

So you agree Russia didn't have to invade Ukraine and instead chose to totally of their own volition?

No because this is not a math equation. That kind of logic works in math, but not geopolitics.

 

[Antiwar]

You have the right to use this website however you want so long as you follow the rules, but if your intent is to persuade others that your view is correct, his advice is actually quite helpful. In fact, it's the best advice anyone has given you.

Also, I can't help but notice the following: if a state acted like you do personally to others on here, that state would be the principal cause of war and general strife.

Then I suppose we should all follow his advice, including him.

 

[Questerr]

No because this is not a math equation. That kind of logic works in math, but not geopolitics.

If they weren't forced to invade Ukraine, then by definition they chose to.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Then I suppose we should all follow his advice, including him.

Yes, sure. And some, moreso than others.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Of course the US did. Look, that’s geo politics in the US. I don’t think it’s any secret that the US seeks, and has sought, this kind of foreign policy. I mean, we’re not going to officially announce on CNN that’s what we’re doing, but destabilizing our adversaries, coercing or allowing them to make blunders, and outright overthrowing of foreign governments we or our financial interests don’t like is what we do.

I think the only valid argument against, is that if we didn’t (or didn’t have the power to) someone would be doing it to us.

We don't have to apologize for Putin's bad behavior.

1. Russia is responsible for its actions.

2. The West has no obligation to help Russia strengthen its geopolitical position relative to the west or anyone else.

3. Russia is not entitled to a sphere of influence, nor is it entitled to a sphere of influence that extends over former Soviet countries.

4. Ukrainians and eastern Europeans have the right to pursue an economic, diplomatic, and foreign policies separate from the dictates of the Kremlin (see 3).

5. The rights of Ukrainians and eastern Europeans to associate themselves with the West are more important than Putin's demands.

6. The U.S. could have shaped geopolitics in a way that made Putin very happy, but this would have hurt the interests of the U.S. the security interests of its allies in Europe, and Europe in general.

So, therefore, Putin can eat a bag of dicks.

 

[Antiwar]

We don't have to apologize for Putin's bad behavior.

1. Russia is responsible for its actions.

2. The West has no obligation to help Russia strengthen its geopolitical position relative to the west or anyone else.

3. Russia is not entitled to a sphere of influence, nor is it entitled to a sphere of influence that extends over former Soviet countries.

4. Ukrainians and eastern Europeans have the right to pursue an economic, diplomatic, and foreign policies separate from the dictates of the Kremlin (see 3).

5. The rights of Ukrainians and eastern Europeans to associate themselves with the West are more important than Putin's demands.

6. The U.S. could have shaped geopolitics in a way that made Putin very happy, but this would have hurt the interests of the U.S. the security interests of its allies in Europe, and Europe in general.

So, therefore, Putin can eat a bag of dicks.

Are Russia and the US/NATO entitled to unduly influence (essentially destroy) the sphere of Earth?

WARNING: I have an excellent response for your parting words of wisdom.

 

[brianpatrick]

If they weren't forced to invade Ukraine, then by definition they chose to.

Yes, that’s how maths work. Not everything is math.
There is probably some math that can represent the entirety of everything, but we don’t know that math yet. With this post you are trying to reduce something very complicated and nuanced into a simple equation. It’s not.

I’m sure if you’re honest you can look at US foreign policy over the last 100 years or so and see what we’ve done. I’m not making a judgement about US global FP actions. I don’t think the ones and zeros blame game is even relevant in discussions like this. There is no definitive good guy and bad guy. It’s the wrong framing of the question if you really want to achieve anything with it.

 

[Questerr]

Are Russia and the US/NATO entitled to unduly influence (essentially destroy) the sphere of Earth?

WARNING: I have an excellent response for your parting words of wisdom.

They aren't entitled to anything. How are you going to force them to stop?

 

[Questerr]

Yes, that’s how maths work. Not everything is math.
There is probably some math that can represent the entirety of everything, but we don’t know that math yet. With this post you are trying to reduce something very complicated and nuanced into a simple equation. It’s not.

I’m sure if you’re honest you can look at US foreign policy over the last 100 years or so and see what we’ve done. I’m not making a judgement about US global FP actions. I don’t think the ones and zeros blame game is even relevant in discussions like this. There is no definitive good guy and bad guy. It’s the wrong framing of the question if you really want to achieve anything with it.

There is a definitive bad guy in Ukraine. Its the militarist dictatorship that launched a war of aggression in order to land grab territory.

 

[brianpatrick]

There is a definitive bad guy in Ukraine. Its the militarist dictatorship that launched a war of aggression in order to land grab territory.

Yes there is a side we’ve chosen in this conflict. In a game theoretic sphere the US has chosen the right side in that conflict because our goals are to destabilize our competitive adversaries while simultaneously protecting our interests in the region. That’s math.

If this were just a good guy/bad guy thing we wouldn’t be allies or doing business with a lot of countries we do business with, or protect, or ally.

It’s similar to the 2A debate. It’s impossible to overturn legally right now because there is a high legal bar, and not enough political will to change it, not because it is some “inherent” right of people to obtain and keep deadly weapons in a civilized society.

 

[Quag]

Please explain how your position is that of a wise adult and how your knowledge makes your position intellectually and morally superior. Or is your position anti-intellectual and immoral/unethical? And/or are you a military supremacist through nuclear firepower?

It has been pointed out many many times but your arrogance will not let you overcome your ignorance
But you can refer back to my original post #22 in this thread

 

[Quag]

Of course the US did. Look, that’s geo politics in the US. I don’t think it’s any secret that the US seeks, and has sought, this kind of foreign policy. I mean, we’re not going to officially announce on CNN that’s what we’re doing, but destabilizing our adversaries, coercing or allowing them to make blunders, and outright overthrowing of foreign governments we or our financial interests don’t like is what we do.

I think the only valid argument against, is that if we didn’t (or didn’t have the power to) someone would be doing it to us.

The only person responisble for the war is Putin even IF his BS attempts at justification were true (which they arent) they do not excuse Putins invasion

 

[brianpatrick]

We don't have to apologize for Putin's bad behavior.

1. Russia is responsible for its actions

Agree. He took the bait and ****ed up. Although, Putin is not actually “Russia” he’s the autocratic leader of that country.

2. The West has no obligation to help Russia strengthen its geopolitical position relative to the west or anyone else.

right. In fact we have a game theoretic imperative to destabilize the Russians who are hostile towards us.

3. Russia is not entitled to a sphere of influence, nor is it entitled to a sphere of influence that extends over former Soviet countries.

Agree

4. Ukrainians and eastern Europeans have the right to pursue an economic, diplomatic, and foreign policies separate from the dictates of the Kremlin (see 3).

Agree, and we will help them because it’s in our geopolitical interest.

5. The rights of Ukrainians and eastern Europeans to associate themselves with the West are more important than Putin's demands.

Yes, to our geopolitical interests.

6. The U.S. could have shaped geopolitics in a way that made Putin very happy, but this would have hurt the interests of the U.S. the security interests of its allies in Europe, and Europe in general.

I don’t think anyone here is sympathizing with Putin. Maybe someone is, but I’m not. I don’t think anyone is trying to make Putin “happy.” He’s a dictator.

So, therefore, Putin can eat a bag of dicks.

Agree, but remember, Putin is not “Russia” or all the Russian people. We can say things like, it’s the Russian people’s fault for letting him come to and stay in power, and that’s true in math, but not very realistic when talking about geopolitics.

 

[brianpatrick]

The only person responisble for the war is Putin even IF his BS attempts at justification were true (which they arent) they do not excuse Putins invasion

responsible to whom?

 

[Quag]

responsible to whom?

I said for not to

 

[brianpatrick]

I said for not to

I know what the commonly used definition is, and I’m suggesting you look outside this use of the word to its etymology. Just because we can legally do something does not make it some “inherent right.” Just because someone broke the law does not make them the “bad guy” in all cases, or absolve their opponents of wrongdoing in their responses.

And again, I’m not defending Putin. I’m defending humans. I’m also not saying we shouldn’t support Ukraine (I think we should).

Many people are quick to say things like, if you’re not with us you’re against us, and that’s just not true in anything but math. People can agree that something has to be done about a situation without “steel manning” the chosen solution as “inherent” or “good” or “right.”

 

[Antiwar]

I know what the commonly used definition is, and I’m suggesting you look outside this use of the word to its etymology. Just because we can legally do something does not make it some “inherent right.” Just because someone broke the law does not make them the “bad guy” in all cases, or absolve their opponents of wrongdoing in their responses.

And again, I’m not defending Putin. I’m defending humans. I’m also not saying we shouldn’t support Ukraine (I think we should).

Many people are quick to say things like, if you’re not with us you’re against us, and that’s just not true in anything but math. People can agree that something has to be done about a situation without “steel manning” the chosen solution as “inherent” or “good” or “right.”

Humanity should do a much better job of supporting the better behaviors of Ukraine and Russia.

 

[Antiwar]

It has been pointed out many many times but your arrogance will not let you overcome your ignorance
But you can refer back to my original post #22 in this thread

Okay, I looked back and all you said is 'don't give in to nuclear blackmail.' The term 'game of nuclear chicken' is much more appropriate than 'nuclear blackmail.'

It doesnt take much intelligence to know that giving in to nuclear blackmail will result in more nuclear blackmail and eventually nuclear war

 

[Questerr]

Humanity should do a much better job of supporting the better behaviors of Ukraine and Russia.

What better behavior does Ukraine need to display? Is defending yourself when you are attacked bad?