This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.  (Read 100826 times)

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #195 on: March 01, 2022, 10:24:26 AM »
Perhaps our 'top men' in the Beltway could be arsed to pay fucking attention to what people are telling them (or maybe they ARE paying attention).

https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/bidens-cia-director-doesnt-believe?utm_source=url

Quote
Two years ago, Burns wrote a memoir entitled, The Back Channel. It directly contradicts the argument being proffered by the administration he now serves. In his book, Burns says over and over that Russians of all ideological stripes—not just Putin—loathed and feared NATO expansion. He quotes a memo he wrote while serving as counselor for political affairs at the US embassy in Moscow in 1995. ‘Hostility to early NATO expansion,” it declares, “is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.” On the question of extending NATO membership to Ukraine, Burns’ warnings about the breadth of Russian opposition are even more emphatic. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” he wrote in a 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

You want to argue that Russia is wrong? Fine. But it doesn't fucking matter, because this was something they were going to freak the fuck out about regardless of the motivations.

I can't wait for the SOTU speech tonight. Who wants to place bets on the potato going off his meds and babbling?

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #196 on: March 01, 2022, 10:24:53 AM »
It doesn't matter that the West says 'we have no ambitions'. The issue is that Russia thinks those ambitions are there. Regardless of the reality of things.

And that doesn't even get into the U.S.'s overseas adventurism.

   Well, I do not believe what US (and lets be honest, the USA is NATO, without the USA NATO would dissolve) says about much of anything anymore.  I can understand where Putin may not believe them either.

Because Putin has done anything to earn your benefit of the doubt? And don't whataboutism that question just answer it directly.

  I am not giving him benefit of the doubt.  I think there is zero trust on both sides of that discussion, and I can see why on both sides.  I am not making a whataboutism of anything, If the USA is the leader of the free world, the shining moral example to be followed, I just miss understanding why they shit their pants when some other country follows their example.

  People screech whataboutism  on some things where it does not apply.  This is a cause and effect situation.  You do enough things, there are going to be effects.  We are seeing effects.

We ask for an end to whataboutisms for the very reason you just demonstrated. I asked you a question about why you appeared to be giving Putin the benefit of the doubt. And I appreciate you answering it but you just couldn't help in the very next sentence mentioning what about the U.S.. For fuck's sake man, how can you not see why whataboutisms make conversations impossible when you cannot even answer that simple question without throwing one in there for no good purpose?

      It is not a whataboutism.  It is a simple measure of where is the legal line to take military action on another nations soil.  The USA has established that to be a very, very flexible line.  So it matters a whole lot in the whole discussion.  That is, unless you feel the USA is able to have a different set of rules, if you feel that, I will surely leave any USA actions out moving forward.  But if you do not establish what is a justified or unjustified invasion, you have to establish which rules we are going by.

   So, do you think the USA has a different standard for an invasion/attacking another sovereign nation than everyone else?  I need no justification or argument for your answer, and will make no argument on that one, just a yes or a no.

This ISN'T ABOUT THE U.S.. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they felt the Iraq invasion was unjust. That in no way is their stated or implied justification for this. You want to make it about the U.S. when even Russia doesn't think this in any way is about the U.S. or anything the U.S. has done in the past. If the U.S. has behaved in an unethical, immoral, illegal, or whatever manner in the past that still plays zero role in justifying or not justifying this event. You're raising it to avoid talking about this event in some weird form of moral relativism acting like if any nation has sinned in the past then all nations can sin and not be judged for it. Which, again, makes conversation about pretty much any topic under the sun impossible.

  So I will ask again, is there one standard for everyone, or is there not?   I do not have to avoid it, as I said 3-4 pages back Putin is clearly in the wrong.  I would just like a point of view from you as to if the USA and everyone else all have the same standard.

You are welcome to one standard or many, whichever suits you. It has fuck-all to do with this topic but you're free to pick your standard and apply it as you will. I am sure you're very comfortable in your theory crafting hole, but we're all commenting on actual events happening now and it would be nice if you expressed an opinion which was more than that of a philosophy professor.

  What is YOUR standard.  Its not what suits me.  I have one stand regarding war, and I have made it crystal clear.  I am curious as to yours.  It has a whole lot to do with the topic.  So is your answer your standard is whatever suits you?

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #197 on: March 01, 2022, 11:37:52 AM »
More seriously, I think this feels like a combination a social credit system and you don't own anything, from the Great Reset. Sanctions should be targeted and specific, not an open-ended invitation for everyone to virtue signal by dogpiling an unpopular world figure. And if you give someone an award, supposedly for some accomplishment, you shouldn't be able to take it away, for something unrelated. Awards should be for accomplishments, not contingent on social standing. Even if it is a meaningless honorary nothing.

I agree. This feels repulsive. This isn't much different then shit like freedom fries and texas toast.
Not sure I get the analogy.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #198 on: March 01, 2022, 11:40:14 AM »
I can't wait for the SOTU speech tonight. Who wants to place bets on the potato going off his meds and babbling?
Who wants to bet that the media will quote him, but the quote will be their translation of what he really means, instead of Biden's actual words?

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #199 on: March 01, 2022, 11:48:06 AM »
I can't wait for the SOTU speech tonight. Who wants to place bets on the potato going off his meds and babbling?
Who wants to bet that the media will quote him, but the quote will be their translation of what he really means, instead of Biden's actual words?

   I like to watch his speeches when the sign language person is there.  The hands up confused look is awesome.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #200 on: March 01, 2022, 01:31:05 PM »
I agree. This feels repulsive. This isn't much different then shit like freedom fries and texas toast.
To be fair, Texas toast is it’s own thing, it wasn’t a rename of French Toast the way “Freedom Fries” was.

French Toast is bread drenched in an egg batter and fried. Texas toast is bread cut extra thick (per the line “everything is bigger in Texas”) then toasted with garlic butter and sometimes cheese.

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #201 on: March 01, 2022, 02:17:30 PM »
To be fair, Texas toast is it’s own thing, it wasn’t a rename of French Toast the way “Freedom Fries” was.

French Toast is bread drenched in an egg batter and fried. Texas toast is bread cut extra thick (per the line “everything is bigger in Texas”) then toasted with garlic butter and sometimes cheese.

Yeah, the lady at the breakfast place just explained the difference to me. So yeah: texas toast is great.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #202 on: March 01, 2022, 03:17:42 PM »
It doesn't matter that the West says 'we have no ambitions'. The issue is that Russia thinks those ambitions are there. Regardless of the reality of things.

And that doesn't even get into the U.S.'s overseas adventurism.

   Well, I do not believe what US (and lets be honest, the USA is NATO, without the USA NATO would dissolve) says about much of anything anymore.  I can understand where Putin may not believe them either.

Because Putin has done anything to earn your benefit of the doubt? And don't whataboutism that question just answer it directly.

  I am not giving him benefit of the doubt.  I think there is zero trust on both sides of that discussion, and I can see why on both sides.  I am not making a whataboutism of anything, If the USA is the leader of the free world, the shining moral example to be followed, I just miss understanding why they shit their pants when some other country follows their example.

  People screech whataboutism  on some things where it does not apply.  This is a cause and effect situation.  You do enough things, there are going to be effects.  We are seeing effects.

We ask for an end to whataboutisms for the very reason you just demonstrated. I asked you a question about why you appeared to be giving Putin the benefit of the doubt. And I appreciate you answering it but you just couldn't help in the very next sentence mentioning what about the U.S.. For fuck's sake man, how can you not see why whataboutisms make conversations impossible when you cannot even answer that simple question without throwing one in there for no good purpose?

      It is not a whataboutism.  It is a simple measure of where is the legal line to take military action on another nations soil.  The USA has established that to be a very, very flexible line.  So it matters a whole lot in the whole discussion.  That is, unless you feel the USA is able to have a different set of rules, if you feel that, I will surely leave any USA actions out moving forward.  But if you do not establish what is a justified or unjustified invasion, you have to establish which rules we are going by.

   So, do you think the USA has a different standard for an invasion/attacking another sovereign nation than everyone else?  I need no justification or argument for your answer, and will make no argument on that one, just a yes or a no.

This ISN'T ABOUT THE U.S.. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they felt the Iraq invasion was unjust. That in no way is their stated or implied justification for this. You want to make it about the U.S. when even Russia doesn't think this in any way is about the U.S. or anything the U.S. has done in the past. If the U.S. has behaved in an unethical, immoral, illegal, or whatever manner in the past that still plays zero role in justifying or not justifying this event. You're raising it to avoid talking about this event in some weird form of moral relativism acting like if any nation has sinned in the past then all nations can sin and not be judged for it. Which, again, makes conversation about pretty much any topic under the sun impossible.

  So I will ask again, is there one standard for everyone, or is there not?   I do not have to avoid it, as I said 3-4 pages back Putin is clearly in the wrong.  I would just like a point of view from you as to if the USA and everyone else all have the same standard.

You are welcome to one standard or many, whichever suits you. It has fuck-all to do with this topic but you're free to pick your standard and apply it as you will. I am sure you're very comfortable in your theory crafting hole, but we're all commenting on actual events happening now and it would be nice if you expressed an opinion which was more than that of a philosophy professor.

  What is YOUR standard.  Its not what suits me.  I have one stand regarding war, and I have made it crystal clear.  I am curious as to yours.  It has a whole lot to do with the topic.  So is your answer your standard is whatever suits you?

For WHAT? I have not argued the U.S. should intervene militarily. I am saying Russia should not be invading Ukraine over them doing literally NOTHING to Russia, and are not accused of doing anything to Russia or harboring anyone who did anything to Russia or Russian citizens. Every war event should be individually analyzed on it's own merits and there isn't some one-size-fits-all standard for everything, but on this one the reasons for the invasion are incredibly weak and it's not justified and appears to be purely opportunistic.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #203 on: March 01, 2022, 03:19:05 PM »
The West should have made better trade deals or not overthrown the elected government to deny the Ukraine to Putin when he was offering money, not mortars.

It seems like the Ukraine government has found out what happens when you win stupid games.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #204 on: March 01, 2022, 03:19:54 PM »
Nobody be messing with my Texas Toast!


oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #205 on: March 01, 2022, 03:26:34 PM »
It doesn't matter that the West says 'we have no ambitions'. The issue is that Russia thinks those ambitions are there. Regardless of the reality of things.

And that doesn't even get into the U.S.'s overseas adventurism.

   Well, I do not believe what US (and lets be honest, the USA is NATO, without the USA NATO would dissolve) says about much of anything anymore.  I can understand where Putin may not believe them either.

Because Putin has done anything to earn your benefit of the doubt? And don't whataboutism that question just answer it directly.

  I am not giving him benefit of the doubt.  I think there is zero trust on both sides of that discussion, and I can see why on both sides.  I am not making a whataboutism of anything, If the USA is the leader of the free world, the shining moral example to be followed, I just miss understanding why they shit their pants when some other country follows their example.

  People screech whataboutism  on some things where it does not apply.  This is a cause and effect situation.  You do enough things, there are going to be effects.  We are seeing effects.

We ask for an end to whataboutisms for the very reason you just demonstrated. I asked you a question about why you appeared to be giving Putin the benefit of the doubt. And I appreciate you answering it but you just couldn't help in the very next sentence mentioning what about the U.S.. For fuck's sake man, how can you not see why whataboutisms make conversations impossible when you cannot even answer that simple question without throwing one in there for no good purpose?

      It is not a whataboutism.  It is a simple measure of where is the legal line to take military action on another nations soil.  The USA has established that to be a very, very flexible line.  So it matters a whole lot in the whole discussion.  That is, unless you feel the USA is able to have a different set of rules, if you feel that, I will surely leave any USA actions out moving forward.  But if you do not establish what is a justified or unjustified invasion, you have to establish which rules we are going by.

   So, do you think the USA has a different standard for an invasion/attacking another sovereign nation than everyone else?  I need no justification or argument for your answer, and will make no argument on that one, just a yes or a no.

This ISN'T ABOUT THE U.S.. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they felt the Iraq invasion was unjust. That in no way is their stated or implied justification for this. You want to make it about the U.S. when even Russia doesn't think this in any way is about the U.S. or anything the U.S. has done in the past. If the U.S. has behaved in an unethical, immoral, illegal, or whatever manner in the past that still plays zero role in justifying or not justifying this event. You're raising it to avoid talking about this event in some weird form of moral relativism acting like if any nation has sinned in the past then all nations can sin and not be judged for it. Which, again, makes conversation about pretty much any topic under the sun impossible.

  So I will ask again, is there one standard for everyone, or is there not?   I do not have to avoid it, as I said 3-4 pages back Putin is clearly in the wrong.  I would just like a point of view from you as to if the USA and everyone else all have the same standard.

You are welcome to one standard or many, whichever suits you. It has fuck-all to do with this topic but you're free to pick your standard and apply it as you will. I am sure you're very comfortable in your theory crafting hole, but we're all commenting on actual events happening now and it would be nice if you expressed an opinion which was more than that of a philosophy professor.

  What is YOUR standard.  Its not what suits me.  I have one stand regarding war, and I have made it crystal clear.  I am curious as to yours.  It has a whole lot to do with the topic.  So is your answer your standard is whatever suits you?

For WHAT? I have not argued the U.S. should intervene militarily. I am saying Russia should not be invading Ukraine over them doing literally NOTHING to Russia, and are not accused of doing anything to Russia or harboring anyone who did anything to Russia or Russian citizens. Every war event should be individually analyzed on it's own merits and there isn't some one-size-fits-all standard for everything, but on this one the reasons for the invasion are incredibly weak and it's not justified and appears to be purely opportunistic.

      I asked you before if every nation should adhere to the same standards the USA uses before taking military action on foreign soil.   It is a pretty clear question.  It is a yes or no question.  That said, I agree 100 percent (as I have said pages ago) Russia is in the wrong here. 

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #206 on: March 01, 2022, 03:41:30 PM »
The question was to Mistwell, but for my two cents, I think it's obvious that morally there is a single standard for all countries.

The rule for invading another sovereign nation are simple. Don't do it. If country A invades country B, then they are wrong - and country B is entitled to fight back. Further, country C and country D are justified in helping country B defend itself.

Lots of countries have engaged in unjustified wars of aggression in history - including Russia, Iraq, the U.S., Britain, France, etc. None of that makes it right when another country does it.

  The USA has a stated standard for getting involved with military force on foreign soil, for legal purposes.  It is extremely thin.  Now I think the standard used is bad, and does not match your, or my moral standard.  You say one bad thing does not justify another...but the reality is if the rules to not apply to everyone, eventually they apply to no one. I suspect this is why mistwell ducks that question.

I feel this is mixing up personal stance with international standards. You have your personal standard of "no foreign wars" - but no one actually sticks to that - certainly not the U.S. I have my stance of purely defensive wars against an aggressor, but again, countries don't abide by it. If I had a magic wand to have my way, I would enforce it on all countries including the U.S. - but I don't.

---

As for what the international standard for war is in practice... Since WWII, the standard to be seen as tolerable/legitimate is that the target is seen as an aggressor in general (though they aren't necessarily invading) or "rogue state", and there be at least a broad coalition on one side, and no coalition on the other side. For example, there were people against the 2003 Iraq War (like you and me), but it was broadly accepted because:

(1) Hussein had twice engaged in aggressive wars against his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait).
(2) There were about a dozen countries signed on to invade Iraq, and no allies of Iraq.

Contrary to some claims, the Iraq War was not authorized by the U.N., but most wars haven't been. I don't like this as an international standard, but it's better than pure free-for-all like in the 19th century.

By this standard, the Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn't fit. Ukraine is not a rogue state, and has not invaded its neighbors. Its government has been accepted even by Russia - who had previously recognized the Zelensky government as the legitimate government and they had diplomatic ties with. Russia made no attempt to build a coalition against Ukraine.

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #207 on: March 01, 2022, 03:55:01 PM »
I think people here are operating from two moralities: optimal, and practical.

Optimal morality operates from 'don't hurt others, no wars, no killing' etc.
While practical operates from 'Context and situation'.
While I may be positing practical as 'smarter' practical can also just lead to no morality, so both are required.

From a optimal morality angle, Putin is the bad guy. He could have made smarter plays, and Bombing Kiev (its escalating slowly to full on destruction) is just evil.
But practical morality treats putin as a hive of wasps. It will do a thing we know from its behaviour. Don't provoke it, or some will suffer the consequences.

I don't think people operating under any of these moralities are bad. Except Socks who thinks this is a game.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #208 on: March 01, 2022, 04:11:13 PM »
It doesn't matter that the West says 'we have no ambitions'. The issue is that Russia thinks those ambitions are there. Regardless of the reality of things.

And that doesn't even get into the U.S.'s overseas adventurism.

   Well, I do not believe what US (and lets be honest, the USA is NATO, without the USA NATO would dissolve) says about much of anything anymore.  I can understand where Putin may not believe them either.

Because Putin has done anything to earn your benefit of the doubt? And don't whataboutism that question just answer it directly.

  I am not giving him benefit of the doubt.  I think there is zero trust on both sides of that discussion, and I can see why on both sides.  I am not making a whataboutism of anything, If the USA is the leader of the free world, the shining moral example to be followed, I just miss understanding why they shit their pants when some other country follows their example.

  People screech whataboutism  on some things where it does not apply.  This is a cause and effect situation.  You do enough things, there are going to be effects.  We are seeing effects.

We ask for an end to whataboutisms for the very reason you just demonstrated. I asked you a question about why you appeared to be giving Putin the benefit of the doubt. And I appreciate you answering it but you just couldn't help in the very next sentence mentioning what about the U.S.. For fuck's sake man, how can you not see why whataboutisms make conversations impossible when you cannot even answer that simple question without throwing one in there for no good purpose?

      It is not a whataboutism.  It is a simple measure of where is the legal line to take military action on another nations soil.  The USA has established that to be a very, very flexible line.  So it matters a whole lot in the whole discussion.  That is, unless you feel the USA is able to have a different set of rules, if you feel that, I will surely leave any USA actions out moving forward.  But if you do not establish what is a justified or unjustified invasion, you have to establish which rules we are going by.

   So, do you think the USA has a different standard for an invasion/attacking another sovereign nation than everyone else?  I need no justification or argument for your answer, and will make no argument on that one, just a yes or a no.

This ISN'T ABOUT THE U.S.. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they felt the Iraq invasion was unjust. That in no way is their stated or implied justification for this. You want to make it about the U.S. when even Russia doesn't think this in any way is about the U.S. or anything the U.S. has done in the past. If the U.S. has behaved in an unethical, immoral, illegal, or whatever manner in the past that still plays zero role in justifying or not justifying this event. You're raising it to avoid talking about this event in some weird form of moral relativism acting like if any nation has sinned in the past then all nations can sin and not be judged for it. Which, again, makes conversation about pretty much any topic under the sun impossible.

  So I will ask again, is there one standard for everyone, or is there not?   I do not have to avoid it, as I said 3-4 pages back Putin is clearly in the wrong.  I would just like a point of view from you as to if the USA and everyone else all have the same standard.

You are welcome to one standard or many, whichever suits you. It has fuck-all to do with this topic but you're free to pick your standard and apply it as you will. I am sure you're very comfortable in your theory crafting hole, but we're all commenting on actual events happening now and it would be nice if you expressed an opinion which was more than that of a philosophy professor.

  What is YOUR standard.  Its not what suits me.  I have one stand regarding war, and I have made it crystal clear.  I am curious as to yours.  It has a whole lot to do with the topic.  So is your answer your standard is whatever suits you?

For WHAT? I have not argued the U.S. should intervene militarily. I am saying Russia should not be invading Ukraine over them doing literally NOTHING to Russia, and are not accused of doing anything to Russia or harboring anyone who did anything to Russia or Russian citizens. Every war event should be individually analyzed on it's own merits and there isn't some one-size-fits-all standard for everything, but on this one the reasons for the invasion are incredibly weak and it's not justified and appears to be purely opportunistic.

      I asked you before if every nation should adhere to the same standards the USA uses before taking military action on foreign soil.   It is a pretty clear question.  It is a yes or no question.  That said, I agree 100 percent (as I have said pages ago) Russia is in the wrong here.

And I have said consistently there is no single standard and you don't get virtue signaling points for claiming you have some philosophical one-size-fits-all standard which addresses all conceivable circumstances for war. So yeah, they should be held to the same standard, which is "Judge each event on it's own merits and circumstances."

I know the Vatican has tried to develop a Just War single standard. I'd say they have mostly failed to truly succeed in that effort. It seems like every time a war breaks out and they try to apply the standard it comes right back to the standard I just articulated. It's at best a wishy-washy vague standard.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.
« Reply #209 on: March 01, 2022, 04:32:48 PM »
I think people here are operating from two moralities: optimal, and practical.

I think if we stick to two binary moralities then you would have: Oughtism and Practical
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus