Why is it the right thing to do now but it's not in Syria, Georgia, Yemen, and many other parts of the world? Why does the "right thing to do" matter so much to you now, but not before???
I am going to ignore your crusade for White vs Brown racism - and say it is the right thing to do because it is Genocide and there is an actual army on the ground which we can fight, none of those other places are as clear cut as this. And, maybe we should intervene in those places, I dunno....... DD
Forget about white or brown, I just want to understand why you are so passionate now and didn't seem bothered by the genocide going on in other places - yesterday and today. What is it that makes this so important over other genocides (although technically it's not genocide)
On that notion I think I’ll send you an olive branch it’s time to put Russia on notice and quit pussyfooting around
I'm honestly not sure how I think about that, either way. Unless you want to start parsing legalese, it's really a distinction without a difference at this point. The Genocide Convention of 1948 codified genocide as an international crime, defining it as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” There's been quite a few good recent (legal/ethical/practical) opinion articles on the subject (I googled "is Ukraine genocide"). Interesting but pretty depressing reading, actually. For a roundup of depressing news articles from around the globe, go here: https://www.genocidewatch.com/
Could be a surplus jacket, could be a Brit doing training somewhere, could be a Brit volunteer, could be several things other than Brit boots in combat roles.
Neither Syria nor Yemen were invasions - the local community were/are fighting each other. There's nothing really the US military can do. Georgia probably should have had a stronger Western response, but it was a much smaller place with much less damage and it took place in the midst of a worldwide economic collapse that was happening at the speed of light. Everyone's attention was focused on preventing the end of the western financial system. And that war lasted all of 12 days before there was a ceasefire, so there wasn't even time to do much of anything. Beyond that, just because the world hasn't done the right thing in the past doesn't mean they shouldn't now - that's a ridiculous argument. There are reasons to get more involved and reasons to not get more involved, but "well, we didn't in Syria!" isn't one of them.
Yes what is happening in Ukraine is horrible and Putin is an evil man. There is still cost and a potential very heavy cost if we directly intervene. Even if nukes aren't used and we succeed in pushing Russia back out of Ukraine Putin and Russia likely won't just let things be. The ethnic Russians in the Donbas region might not either. We could be stuck helping Ukraine dealing with an insurgency in Donbas for years. We could be caught up in "policing" a zone bordering Ukraine to keep Russia from reinvading. In addition the rest of the former Soviet Union is unstable and our actions could spill into dealing with much else in those regions. If nukes are used a good case would be that millions are dead, parts of Eastern and Central Europe are poisoned by radioactive fallout. The worst case is the end of civilization.
Honestly had no clue it was going on in those places......but as this is Russia and a threat to humanity, I think it is a war in which we need to set the world on a better course......BTW - I did feel this way about Georgia too but I don't think logistics would allow us to get in there. This is true, I don't think he will use them, or his army will follow that order - but I am not immune to that point, however, you won't win by slowly giving him territory - unless the strategy is to let the Ukrainians die and hope Putin dies and the next dude/person won't be as bad. DD
Or we don't stop Russia now, let them escalate on their own terms, and they invade another country and we end up in a nuclear war anyway. Who knows how this plays out in either direction - this whole one-sided hypothetical where one route might lead to bad outcomes while ignoring the potentialy outcomes of other routes is silly. Maybe by not intervening, we will be helping Ukraine deal with an insurgency in Donbas and other parts of Ukraine for years - that's actually the outcome the US is predicting. Maybe if we intervened more aggressively a month ago, we stop Russia before they had a chance to retreat and regroup, millions fewer Ukrainians were uprooted, tens of thousands of lives were saved, Mariupol isn't obliterated, and there's no war now. Maybe Putin ends up nuking the world in either scenario. There's no way to know. But it's weird to argue Putin would use nukes if he's losing because US planes are involved, but he wouldn't use nukes if he's losing because the US is providing all the firepower and crippling his economy.
I just don't get why he in particular is all of a sudden so adamant about human rights. For me the argument isn't about the past, it's about nuclear war.
Is Russia a threat to humanity? I disagree with that statement. They are certainly a threat to Ukraine, and recent events show that they aren't the threat to NATO as many have claimed. I know the loss of life is tragic, there's no doubt about that. But I just don't think we can risk a wider war and very likely far more lives - that's not going to save the Ukrainian people. This is something that I don't think you are understanding - that US involvement might actually result in more Ukrainian deaths as even without nukes you face an escalation that will likely spread beyond the current fighting regions. There's no good solution here. No clear moral compass. What the world is doing - helping Ukraine fight Russia and defend herself without creating a wider war is not only the wisest course, but its proving to perhaps be the most effective.
Awesome so they won't use Nukes you agree. Not to the people that are dying, and the mass graves being dug, Russia is vulnerable, her equipment outdated, her military weak, her leadership poor due to grifting - the time is now. DD
They may use nukes in a wider war if they felt threatened enough. I'm sorry, but it's the wrong thing to do to interfere - throughout human history most wars lead to more death and destruction not less. Thus far, Ukraine has done well in this war.
Why would I wish for Russia to use nukes? This is why debating you is so painful, you do this thing where you twist people's positions into ridiculous ideas.
