'Liberals'/'Leftists' in America

[Marionumber1]

No, I'm supporting Ukraine's right to defend themselves against an invasion. You keep trying to reduce this down to US vs Russia, but there's an actual country in the middle, being actually invaded by one of those powers. If them defending themselves means getting aid from one of those parties, so what?

There was an actual country in the middle whose government was overthrown by the US back in 2014. So I take it you supported the Russian-backed separatist movements within Ukraine who revolted against this illegitimately-installed government? You don't mind their backing by an imperialist superpower clearly not motivated by genuine concern for Ukrainians, because at least they were taking on another imperialist superpower which was doing worse things to Ukraine at the time? If so, you'd at least get credit for being consistent.

When we talk about the US's very recent and still ongoing history of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, you ask why we "keep bringing it up" if not to defend Russia. The point is to illustrate the severe historical gaps in your premise that this is just about "Ukraine defending themselves against an invasion". Ukraine's government policies for the past 8 years were driven by the West, not by those representing the interests of the Ukrainian people, in order to antagonize Russia. Anti-Russian militia groups, largely populated by overt fascists, were armed by the US to build up near the Russian border, while any attempt at peace processes with Russia was sabotaged by these same forces. Obviously none of this justifies Russia's actions: they shouldn't have taken the bait just because we laid it out, and the war crimes they've committed have been atrocious. But the US wanted this conflict at least as much as Russia, and after spending 8 years of escalating the situation in Ukraine to drag them into it, they're now continuing to fuel it instead of trying to end it. The "aid" policies you support are not, despite what they may be presented as, a means of helping an independent nation defend itself: they are a more overt continuation of US/NATO influence over (not help to) Ukraine to make it engage against Russia as long as possible.

You've accused us all of covertly supporting the war, but we've supported policies (negotiating with Russia) that will actually stop it while your position (foreign "aid") is to keep fueling the war until...what, exactly? Yes, a negotiation is, by its very nature, not going to produce every country's preferred outcome. In the Cuban missile crisis, I would argue that Cuba had every right to possess nuclear weapons without the US having any say whatsoever; and if they'd had them, maybe the US would have been more restrained in all the dirty ops they ran against Cuba for decades. It's still better to have ended the way it did (in a negotiated settlement) than with a US invasion of Cuba or an even more direct conflict with the Soviet Union.

[stickdog99]

Russia and Putin are bad. Thus, peace and negotiation are bad.

That's the argument I keep hearing from my "progressive" friends. Sorry, but I don't get it. And I am not a hypocrite because I don't support fueling an apocalyptic conflict between the two biggest nuclear powers in human history with Ukraine-pawn getting destroyed in the middle as you do.

[stickdog99]

In the Cuban missile crisis, I would argue that Cuba had every right to possess nuclear weapons without the US having any say whatsoever; and if they'd had them, maybe the US would have been more restrained in all the dirty ops they ran against Cuba for decades. It's still better to have ended the way it did (in a negotiated settlement) than with a US invasion of Cuba or an even more direct conflict with the Soviet Union.

Exactly. Taking Dr. Evil's "logic", everybody in the world should have sent as much military aid to Cuba as possible in that situation in order to support Cuba's "right to defend themselves against an invasion," no matter how high the resulting risk of nuclear armageddon. You know, because imperialistic aggression is always bad and thus it sets a "bad precedent" to ever negotiate any settlement with any country that commits any imperialistic aggression. Thus, an extended proxy war between the USSR vs. the USA in Cuba would have been the best possible outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis for Cuba and all the rest of us. Because, of course, pawn-Cuba "gets to decide this" and not the USA and the USSR.

Right, Dr. Evil? Or are you a "hypocrite"?

[stickdog99]

Much more prudent course of action than considering any negotiated settlement. Just keep fueling the fire.

[Grizzly]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1587921418708127744.html

[Grizzly]

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/11/02/caitlin-johnstone-destroying-western-values-to-defend-western-values/

The “fight for democracy” grows ever-more tyrannical, says Caitlin Johnstone. Now we learn that the U.S. intelligence cartel has been working intimately with online platforms to regulate the “cognitive infrastructure” of the population.

[Joe Hillshoist]

No, I'm supporting Ukraine's right to defend themselves against an invasion. You keep trying to reduce this down to US vs Russia, but there's an actual country in the middle, being actually invaded by one of those powers. If them defending themselves means getting aid from one of those parties, so what?

There was an actual country in the middle whose government was overthrown by the US back in 2014. So I take it you supported the Russian-backed separatist movements within Ukraine who revolted against this illegitimately-installed government? You don't mind their backing by an imperialist superpower clearly not motivated by genuine concern for Ukrainians, because at least they were taking on another imperialist superpower which was doing worse things to Ukraine at the time? If so, you'd at least get credit for being consistent.

When we talk about the US's very recent and still ongoing history of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, you ask why we "keep bringing it up" if not to defend Russia. The point is to illustrate the severe historical gaps in your premise that this is just about "Ukraine defending themselves against an invasion". Ukraine's government policies for the past 8 years were driven by the West, not by those representing the interests of the Ukrainian people, in order to antagonize Russia. Anti-Russian militia groups, largely populated by overt fascists, were armed by the US to build up near the Russian border, while any attempt at peace processes with Russia was sabotaged by these same forces. Obviously none of this justifies Russia's actions: they shouldn't have taken the bait just because we laid it out, and the war crimes they've committed have been atrocious. But the US wanted this conflict at least as much as Russia, and after spending 8 years of escalating the situation in Ukraine to drag them into it, they're now continuing to fuel it instead of trying to end it. The "aid" policies you support are not, despite what they may be presented as, a means of helping an independent nation defend itself: they are a more overt continuation of US/NATO influence over (not help to) Ukraine to make it engage against Russia as long as possible.

You've accused us all of covertly supporting the war, but we've supported policies (negotiating with Russia) that will actually stop it while your position (foreign "aid") is to keep fueling the war until...what, exactly? Yes, a negotiation is, by its very nature, not going to produce every country's preferred outcome. In the Cuban missile crisis, I would argue that Cuba had every right to possess nuclear weapons without the US having any say whatsoever; and if they'd had them, maybe the US would have been more restrained in all the dirty ops they ran against Cuba for decades. It's still better to have ended the way it did (in a negotiated settlement) than with a US invasion of Cuba or an even more direct conflict with the Soviet Union.

Have you ever been in a fight?

Like a serious one with people who wanted to hurt you?

Once the fight starts then things like "who started it" don't matter. All that matters is not getting your head kicked in.

You can worry about which of your dickhead mates started it tomorrow, if we all avoid hospital.

[stickdog99]

How about if we stop the fight?

[Marionumber1]

Have you ever been in a fight?

Like a serious one with people who wanted to hurt you?

Once the fight starts then things like "who started it" don't matter. All that matters is not getting your head kicked in.

You can worry about which of your dickhead mates started it tomorrow, if we all avoid hospital.

Well, imagine if the fight started because your dickhead friend convinced you to start constantly harassing your much larger/stronger neighbor, getting right up in their face while hurling verbal abuse and faking swings at them, and after a while your neighbor finally snapped and started beating you up. Now you've got into a full-on fight that you never really wanted in the first place, but thankfully your dickhead friend will step in whenever you're getting pummeled a bit too hard and score a few blows on the neighbor to soften them up. For the most part, though, they're content to sit on the sidelines and watch you two fight it out. Oh, and did I mention that your dickhead friend has an old grudge against your neighbor dating back to high school, so there's a part of you wondering if they deliberately got you to provoke a fight because of that? It's almost as if he's using you as a meat shield to get the neighbor tired and distracted so he can more easily get some hits in by himself. With that in mind, which of these is the most sensible conclusion:

• Damn, my "friend" isn't really a friend at all; and instead of us continuing to beat on each other, I should see if I can come to a truce with my neighbor
• Fuck my neighbor; he shouldn't have attacked me no matter how much of a prick I was being, and I know he was always wanting to fight me anyway, so let's keep swinging at each other until one of us gets knocked out! With my friend in my corner, I'm sure my neighbor will be the first to go down if we work together!

Your last sentence makes the case for seeking a negotiated end to the war, rather than have the West continue supplying arms and "intelligence" to keep fueling it. The main argument against seeking a diplomatic solution is that doing so is bad because it doesn't make Russia take enough of a loss. Framing it as you have: worrying more about who's most guilty for the fight than avoiding further casualties.

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^

I enjoyed that thought experiment/continuation of the initially offered analogy. Well done.

Imagine comparing current geopolitics to a street fight.

Perhaps I was too generous when I mentioned comic books earlier. It's apparently more base than that.

And as an FYI, for whatever it's worth: I grew up in Queens, NY, a first generation italian/Spanish kid with an accent. Damn right I got Into several street brawls. And I'd never for a moment think to compare those scenarios to vile acts occurring right now in the world.

At least those that picked fights with me were far more honest and direct in intent, for one thing.

In any event , the last couple pages go a long way towards proving the point of the OP of this thread, so thanks for that.

[Belligerent Savant]

Also:

With each passing month I find these self-described U.S. 'liberals' to be more hypocritical, prone to herd-mentality, markedly less empathetic, and susceptible to 'othering' than practically any other group or class. Largely a group of entitled aholes, in short.
9:12 AM · Nov 5, 2022

https://twitter.com/ApertaAria/status/1 ... MGSsPv-hlA

And:

Clifton Duncan.
@cliftonaduncan

Never call yourself an "Antiracist" if you pushed lockdowns that disproportionately destroyed Black businesses, supported school closures that disproportionately harmed Black children, and demanded vaccine mandates that disproportionately infringed on Black freedoms.

aria_aperta
@ApertaAria

Replying to @cliftonaduncan

The hypocrisy, particularly over the last ~2yrs, among those that call themselves 'liberals' or proponents of human rights is astounding.

https://twitter.com/ApertaAria/status/1 ... MGSsPv-hlA

[DrEvil]

Have you ever been in a fight?

Like a serious one with people who wanted to hurt you?

Once the fight starts then things like "who started it" don't matter. All that matters is not getting your head kicked in.

You can worry about which of your dickhead mates started it tomorrow, if we all avoid hospital.

Well, imagine if the fight started because your dickhead friend convinced you to start constantly harassing your much larger/stronger neighbor, getting right up in their face while hurling verbal abuse and faking swings at them, and after a while your neighbor finally snapped and started beating you up. Now you've got into a full-on fight that you never really wanted in the first place, but thankfully your dickhead friend will step in whenever you're getting pummeled a bit too hard and score a few blows on the neighbor to soften them up. For the most part, though, they're content to sit on the sidelines and watch you two fight it out. Oh, and did I mention that your dickhead friend has an old grudge against your neighbor dating back to high school, so there's a part of you wondering if they deliberately got you to provoke a fight because of that? It's almost as if he's using you as a meat shield to get the neighbor tired and distracted so he can more easily get some hits in by himself. With that in mind, which of these is the most sensible conclusion:

• Damn, my "friend" isn't really a friend at all; and instead of us continuing to beat on each other, I should see if I can come to a truce with my neighbor
• Fuck my neighbor; he shouldn't have attacked me no matter how much of a prick I was being, and I know he was always wanting to fight me anyway, so let's keep swinging at each other until one of us gets knocked out! With my friend in my corner, I'm sure my neighbor will be the first to go down if we work together!

Your last sentence makes the case for seeking a negotiated end to the war, rather than have the West continue supplying arms and "intelligence" to keep fueling it. The main argument against seeking a diplomatic solution is that doing so is bad because it doesn't make Russia take enough of a loss. Framing it as you have: worrying more about who's most guilty for the fight than avoiding further casualties.

Except in this case a truce would involve your neighbor getting half your lawn and a lifelong promise never to go to any of the pubs frequented by the asshole friend (but you can come to your neighbor's pub. He's got cheap vodka!). If you can come to an agreement where you get to keep your property and can go about your life as you see fit (and yes, that includes hanging out with your asshole friend) - great, otherwise it doesn't really sound like a good deal, does it?

It's as Joe said, regardless of how the fight started, they're in the fight right now, and they have a right to defend themselves. The reason the asshole friend is just standing by and landing the occasional punch is a) what you said, and b) anything more and there's a good chance the neighbor goes in his house and gets his rifle. And even if the friend is a complete and utter piece of shit (which he is, and I would like nothing more than seeing him get the shit kicked out of him), isn't an occasional blow better than no help at all? Would it be better if he got his friend/stooge in a fight and then just left?

[Joe Hillshoist]

^^^^^

I enjoyed that thought experiment/continuation of the initially offered analogy. Well done.

Imagine comparing current geopolitics to a street fight.

Perhaps I was too generous when I mentioned comic books earlier. It's apparently more base than that.

And as an FYI, for whatever it's worth: I grew up in Queens, NY, a first generation italian/Spanish kid with an accent. Damn right I got Into several street brawls. And I'd never for a moment think to compare those scenarios to vile acts occurring right now in the world.

At least those that picked fights with me were far more honest and direct in intent, for one thing.

In any event , the last couple pages go a long way towards proving the point of the OP of this thread, so thanks for that.

Well that's stupid isn't it.

Because for the people in Ukraine that is their situation.

BTW Ukraine is a racist state. Less than a year ago a court in Odessa upheld the right of some Ukrainians to engage in ethnic cleansing of Roma people.

So I'm not particularly a fan of their nation or its politics. I see little difference between one bunch of euro racists and another who happen to be blowing the shit out of them (and the people they are keeping stateless in their country because of their racist arsed attitude.)

Its pretty obvious that this is the endgame of a decade plus long US plan to wreck the gas trade between Russia and the EU. A plan that goes back to 2009 when Putin and Timochenko made a deal to supply the EU with cheap Russian gas while cutting out both Viktor Y's (the Russian puppet and the US puppet) and their corrupt Ukrainian gas companies.

But unlike you seppos, and me at the arse end of the world Dr Evil has some skin in this game. he's like a Syrian in 2008 wondering what might happen in a few years if this shit keeps up.

The fact you lot can't see that and show some understanding to it just shows how broken all discourse has become, even here where we used to think we were better than that.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Have you ever been in a fight?

Like a serious one with people who wanted to hurt you?

Once the fight starts then things like "who started it" don't matter. All that matters is not getting your head kicked in.

You can worry about which of your dickhead mates started it tomorrow, if we all avoid hospital.

Well, imagine if the fight started because your dickhead friend convinced you to start constantly harassing your much larger/stronger neighbor, getting right up in their face while hurling verbal abuse and faking swings at them, and after a while your neighbor finally snapped and started beating you up. Now you've got into a full-on fight that you never really wanted in the first place, but thankfully your dickhead friend will step in whenever you're getting pummeled a bit too hard and score a few blows on the neighbor to soften them up. For the most part, though, they're content to sit on the sidelines and watch you two fight it out. Oh, and did I mention that your dickhead friend has an old grudge against your neighbor dating back to high school, so there's a part of you wondering if they deliberately got you to provoke a fight because of that? It's almost as if he's using you as a meat shield to get the neighbor tired and distracted so he can more easily get some hits in by himself. With that in mind, which of these is the most sensible conclusion:

• Damn, my "friend" isn't really a friend at all; and instead of us continuing to beat on each other, I should see if I can come to a truce with my neighbor
• Fuck my neighbor; he shouldn't have attacked me no matter how much of a prick I was being, and I know he was always wanting to fight me anyway, so let's keep swinging at each other until one of us gets knocked out! With my friend in my corner, I'm sure my neighbor will be the first to go down if we work together!

Your last sentence makes the case for seeking a negotiated end to the war, rather than have the West continue supplying arms and "intelligence" to keep fueling it. The main argument against seeking a diplomatic solution is that doing so is bad because it doesn't make Russia take enough of a loss. Framing it as you have: worrying more about who's most guilty for the fight than avoiding further casualties.

I wouldn't describe that as the situation but its close.

My point is it doesn't matter when you are in a fight. Deal with that first. Either win it or get to a situation you can run away from it. And your friend is a dickhead remember, not someone you should really count as a friend. Not someone you can really trust to have your back. But that doesn't mean the guy you are punching on with is any good either.

And I'm all for a negotiated end to this war tomorrow. Cos less people will die.

But if I was an ordinary Ukrainian I might want to keep fighting cos fuck those bastards. They've killed my mates, family members, blew up my favorite pub and some of my favorite musos and they will lose eventually. All invasions fail these days. Its the lesson of conflict post ww2. Asymmetric warfare always favours the little people. Its just a matter of how much it hurts on the way to winning.

Rationally I dunno why the Ukrainians would want to do the US' dirty work on that front but once the war starts that sort of rational thinking goes out the window.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Have you ever been in a fight?

Like a serious one with people who wanted to hurt you?

Once the fight starts then things like "who started it" don't matter. All that matters is not getting your head kicked in.

You can worry about which of your dickhead mates started it tomorrow, if we all avoid hospital.

Well, imagine if the fight started because your dickhead friend convinced you to start constantly harassing your much larger/stronger neighbor, getting right up in their face while hurling verbal abuse and faking swings at them, and after a while your neighbor finally snapped and started beating you up. Now you've got into a full-on fight that you never really wanted in the first place, but thankfully your dickhead friend will step in whenever you're getting pummeled a bit too hard and score a few blows on the neighbor to soften them up. For the most part, though, they're content to sit on the sidelines and watch you two fight it out. Oh, and did I mention that your dickhead friend has an old grudge against your neighbor dating back to high school, so there's a part of you wondering if they deliberately got you to provoke a fight because of that? It's almost as if he's using you as a meat shield to get the neighbor tired and distracted so he can more easily get some hits in by himself. With that in mind, which of these is the most sensible conclusion:

• Damn, my "friend" isn't really a friend at all; and instead of us continuing to beat on each other, I should see if I can come to a truce with my neighbor
• Fuck my neighbor; he shouldn't have attacked me no matter how much of a prick I was being, and I know he was always wanting to fight me anyway, so let's keep swinging at each other until one of us gets knocked out! With my friend in my corner, I'm sure my neighbor will be the first to go down if we work together!

Your last sentence makes the case for seeking a negotiated end to the war, rather than have the West continue supplying arms and "intelligence" to keep fueling it. The main argument against seeking a diplomatic solution is that doing so is bad because it doesn't make Russia take enough of a loss. Framing it as you have: worrying more about who's most guilty for the fight than avoiding further casualties.

Except in this case a truce would involve your neighbor getting half your lawn and a lifelong promise never to go to any of the pubs frequented by the asshole friend (but you can come to your neighbor's pub. He's got cheap vodka!). If you can come to an agreement where you get to keep your property and can go about your life as you see fit (and yes, that includes hanging out with your asshole friend) - great, otherwise it doesn't really sound like a good deal, does it?

It's as Joe said, regardless of how the fight started, they're in the fight right now, and they have a right to defend themselves. The reason the asshole friend is just standing by and landing the occasional punch is a) what you said, and b) anything more and there's a good chance the neighbor goes in his house and gets his rifle. And even if the friend is a complete and utter piece of shit (which he is, and I would like nothing more than seeing him get the shit kicked out of him), isn't an occasional blow better than no help at all? Would it be better if he got his friend/stooge in a fight and then just left?

To a large extent that is what the US has done. Started the fight then walked away, but if they had stayed it would be a really bad situation, especially for people in range of the fallout.

Except in this case a truce would involve your neighbor getting half your lawn and a lifelong promise never to go to any of the pubs frequented by the asshole friend (but you can come to your neighbor's pub. He's got cheap vodka!). If you can come to an agreement where you get to keep your property and can go about your life as you see fit (and yes, that includes hanging out with your asshole friend) - great, otherwise it doesn't really sound like a good deal, does it?

This reminds me of the scene in Chopper when Chopper shoots "Neville Bartos".

How much pain are you willing to go thru to hang on to your cash/material goods? I mean in this situation its not just material goods. Its also your home and identity. But how much do you want to bleed to keep those things?