The future of Ukraine (crime, life, 2014, country)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could someone tell my why the city of Mariupol is so important to Russia (aka: you-know-who)? Or is it that they're after that entire section of the coastline, between the Russian border and Crimea? But they've been going after Mariupol pretty fiercely, and have intensified the attack this weekend.
You asked: "What's the difference between the USA invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Ukraine?"
The point was Americans learned at a cost both to other peoples and to the country that invasions destabilize spreading into the population while Putin even with that example and seeing for himself the results in Syria did not. From THAT you think I need a lesson on child-killing?
The reference to the WMDs was to point out how the fear of WMDs that include nuclear 'button-push' nations into taking horrendous and wrongful steps. Focus on THAT, not a segue into what Bush knew and did not. Putin is also now nuclear button-pushing as he sends various signals.
Okay, this is what I'm not getting.
What proof do you have the USA learned anything?
After all, why didn't the USA learn after Vietnam?
Afterwards Iraq, the USA went onto Afghanistan Syria and Libya.
If it USA learned something why did it continue on?
I have not seen any apology from the USA to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.
Last edited by YorktownGal; 03-20-2022 at 05:53 PM..
Could someone tell my why the city of Mariupol is so important to Russia (aka: you-know-who)? Or is it that they're after that entire section of the coastline, between the Russian border and Crimea? But they've been going after Mariupol pretty fiercely, and have intensified the attack this weekend.
Because it's war. It's surround the enemy and splits it in two.
It's awful, but all war is awful. This is why you negotiate a peace before the fighting begins.
Unfortunately the Ukrainian president bet that NATO would save his ass without any real agreement from NATO.
Some of the things the USA did in Iraq and Afghanistan were bad, but that does not make it OK for Putin to kill civilians in Ukraine.
Imagine a rapist saying, "yesterday some guy raped a woman. That makes it OK for me to rape women."
No, but it's the pot calling the kettle black. It was okay for me to child-kill, but it was wrong for you. It's makes me a better person for calling you a child-killer. Even though, I am going to child-kill again.
Could someone tell my why the city of Mariupol is so important to Russia (aka: you-know-who)? Or is it that they're after that entire section of the coastline, between the Russian border and Crimea? But they've been going after Mariupol pretty fiercely, and have intensified the attack this weekend.
Mariupol stands as a barrier between Crimea and Donbas. Take Mariupol and you control a direct line from Crimea to the Russian border, and don't have to rely only on that single bridge at Kerch that is insufficient for needs and could could be sabotaged.
After all, why didn't the USA learn after Vietnam?
Afterwards Iraq, the USA went onto Afghanistan Syria and Libya.
If it USA learned something why did it continue on?
I have not seen any apology from the USA.
Well let's see the next time the United States invades a nation with no provocation. It has not embraced pacifism and as much as I appreciate that sentiment the human the amygdala may never progress that far.
The question you should be asking it should it be supplying Ukraine with weapons today. Perhaps the appropriate question is best avoided because it skirts too close to what Putin has chosen?
On these threads I have found the justifications provided for the Putin invasion unacceptable. With the explanation that civilians are bound to be killed because 'that is just war' profoundly unacceptable.
Well let's see the next time the United States invades a nation with no provocation. It has not embraced pacifism and as much as I appreciate that sentiment the human the amygdala may never progress that far.
The question you should be asking it should it be supplying Ukraine with weapons today. Perhaps the appropriate question is best avoided because it skirts too close to what Putin has chosen?
On these threads I have found the justifications provided for the Putin invasion unacceptable. With the explanation that civilians are bound to be killed because 'that is just war' profoundly unacceptable.
Come on, in what war has the USA not killed civilians?
No one likes that civilians are killed in war. I don't like it.
However, how do you not kill civilians in war?
An after thought. The USA has been supplying weapons and training Ukraine soldiers for the last eight years. The USA has been anticipating a war with Russia for the last eight years.
I hope the USA has not used Ukraine as a batting ram against Russia, but its been said by UK papers.
After all, why didn't the USA learn after Vietnam?
Afterwards Iraq, the USA went onto Afghanistan Syria and Libya.
If it USA learned something why did it continue on?
I have not seen any apology from the USA.
The question you should be asking is: Should the US be supplying Ukraine with weapons today? Clearly we are discussing the Putin decision to take that step. The above strikes me as avoidance of the key issue.
Human life no matter the nationality has value, as do other factors like personal freedom. To where I took the time to read raw UN data and Amnesty International reports on the region. Finding that clear "good guys" and "bad guys" are not always easily identifiable.
To me, the justifications provided for the Putin invasion fall way short. With explanations that civilians are bound to be killed because 'that is just war' profoundly unacceptable. So, there, I can say: Putin is a bad guy here.
While I do not oppose "debate" this is a topic too emotion-laden to engage in it further.
Needless to say feel free to clarify your thoughts but without me.
It seems like there is a clear simple division between people. You either believe 100% with complete absolutism that Putin is doing the right thing and back everything up with proof from russian news or some obscure nut-job source that are complete homers to the russian viewpoint, or you see the atrocities of blown up buildings, dead children, and mass migration through plain old news videos from everywhere on television, twitter, tiktok, and facebook.
This is how talking poinst usually are:
- Putin lovers talk in big generalities of denazification and Western propaganda and American fascism. Like as if there is any meaning to constantly shouting out these dumb generalized words.
- Everyone else talk about specifcs, dead civilians, blown up hospitals and schools.
- Putin lovers respond to everyone with oh you're looking at fake videos and western lies. Like any country whether European or American would waste an second of time or penny to make a fake video?
- The thing is the "West" has nothing to gain from an attack on Ukriane. Russia has everything to gain on the attack in Ukraine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
