Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's above your pay grade. The Hague isn't involved with America's crimes against humanity and so no would/should/could.There is where I ask you to demonstrate that The Hague would/should/could be busy with any such thing, and where you respond by tucking your tail and running away.
As always.
And Ukraine isn’t one of them. As for our NATO alliances… That’s a bad contract for us. They need us. We don’t need them. All NATO membership means for us is an increased chance of being dragged into European wars. Russia has never, and likely will never contemplate invading the US. This is a European problem.
It's just that we watched every night as the cruise missiles struck Iraq's civilian population, and on US lying media! Twice!Don't know. Tell us.
Then, demonstrate your response to be true.
Or, tuck tail and run.
We both know which you will choose.
At this point it’s just Ukraine. Not all of Europe. It’s not the US, or any part of North America. There are plenty of Europeans in Europe to do what needs to be done. Let their sons die in a European war. Better theirs than mine.So Russia should be permitted to run roughshod through Europe?
And thus, you tuck tail and run from your claim.It's above your pay grade.
What's that?It's just that we watched every night as the cruise missiles struck Iraq's civilian population, and on US lying media! Twice!
Sovereignty does in fact give the right to invade. That is rather the whole point of sovereignty, the ability of every nation to pursue their interests. The problems arise when nations apply different standards or blatant hypocrisy outside the interests of those they supposedly represent.Just as you have the right to swing your arms, that right is limited when it either causes another person to have to flinch or if it causes your hand or fist to strike his nose.
Similarly, the sovereignty of a nation doesn’t allow it to freely invade another sovereign nation. There is no such “right.” For otherwise your claim of sovereignty denies another state of their sovereign right to be left the fuck alone.
So, it seems like consequences may very well attach if country R (especially based on an obviously dishonest pretext) chooses to invade country U. Countries like A, B, C, etc., might just find it necessary to either sanction country R or maybe even go further.
These responses could lead to a wider war. It’s true. But as we learned from history, failure to respond decisively at the outset can also lead to dire repercussions.
At this point it’s just Ukraine. Not all of Europe. It’s not the US, or any part of North America. There are plenty of Europeans in Europe to do what needs to be done. Let their sons die in a European war. Better theirs than mine.
I think if Russia tries to invade a second country that the whole dynamic of the American response will have to change, as it will harken back to Hitler's expansion through Europe...
Nope. That alleged “right” is no different than your “right” to break into my house. Yeah, you might be able to physically do it, but that isn’t the same as having any legitimate “right” to do it. So, no. It is far from the “point of sovereignty.”Sovereignty does in fact give the right to invade. That is rather the whole point of sovereignty, the ability of every nation to pursue their interests. The problems arise when nations apply different standards or blatant hypocrisy outside the interests of those they supposedly represent.
The era you elude to is bygone era, the world had changed. We must change with it. Attempting to fit this scenario into that box is pure folly.
Correct. Just as every country as the right to defend itself, and help its friends defend themselves.Sovereignty does in fact give the right to invade. That is rather the whole point of sovereignty, the ability of every nation to pursue their interests.
With all due respect sir, that analogy is quite false. It is a product of American exceptionalism. We tend to view things through the spectrum of our own inalienable rights. Countries are not individuals and therefore their interests cannot be singularly selfish but must represent the needs of their population. Countries do not invade each other to steal knick knacks.Nope. That alleged “right” is no different than your “right” to break into my house. Yeah, you might be able to physically do it, but that isn’t the same as having any legitimate “right” to do it. So, no. It is far from the “point of sovereignty.”
The era to which I ALLUDE is right fucking now. Unless we are so careless as to permit lessons from history to be ignored, we really owe it to ourselves and to the world (and vice versa) to resolutely stamp-out international aggressions of the kind Russia is now engaging in. And we best recognize that to do nothing is at least as risky as doing something.
Ukraine is not our friend, but rather the next setting of an unnecessary proxy war.Correct. Just as every country as the right to defend itself, and help its friends defend themselves.
International disputes, where the parties cannot reach an agreement, are settled by force, or the threat thereof.
I didn't say they were.Ukraine is not our friend, but rather the next setting of an unnecessary proxy war.
With all due respect back at you, you remain incorrect. It is a fine analogy. Just as you have (as an individual with recognized rights which we sometimes call your personal sovereignty) your rights, so too others have their rights. Yours are not without limits.With all due respect sir, that analogy is quite false. It is a product of American exceptionalism. We tend to view things through the spectrum of our own inalienable rights. Countries are not individuals and therefore their interests cannot be singularly selfish but must represent the needs of their population. Countries do not invade each other to steal knick knacks.
You are falsely trying to compare today to the 1930's and 1940's. You could not be more wrong.
Sag of Main Street has voted the thumbs down of disagreement. Not clear how or why he imagines Putin could justify his attack against Ukraine.It doesn’t matter “why.” It was absolutely unjustifiable.
i see one more ivan, orAnd Ukraine isn’t one of them. As for our NATO alliances… That’s a bad contract for us. They need us. We don’t need them. All NATO membership means for us is an increased chance of being dragged into European wars. Russia has never, and likely will never contemplate invading the US. This is a European problem.
I must disagree on a number of matters. As to borders, they are lines drawn on a map, insubstantial concepts until pressed. There is no permanence. After the Cold War we redrew the map of of Eastern Europe as we saw fit. Much blood was spilled and there is still dissatisfaction, check out today's Bosnia if you wish to verify. On the same token the US expanded westward with no regard to the sovereignty of others. Now Russia wants to redraw some maps, and they are willing to do so with force. How are they any more wrong than we have been?With all due respect back at you, you remain incorrect. It is a fine analogy. Just as you have (as an individual with recognized rights which we sometimes call your personal sovereignty) your rights, so too others have their rights. Yours are not without limits.
Nations have borders. Your right as a nation is your own business within your own borders (again with some exceptions). But your right as a nation is not your business beyond your border. That’s not at all what sovereignty means or was ever understood nor intended to mean. Were it otherwise, sovereignty would lose all meaning.
Ukraine had recognized borders. It did not do a damn thing to Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine’s border. It violated Ukraine’s sovereignty.
NONE of this has anything to do with “American exceptionalism.”
Further, we made a mistake with Hitler. He was allowed to trample into other nations and got no international pushback until it was dangerously close to being too fucking late. We dare not make the same mistake, now, with Putin. The comparison between Hitler and Putin can be subject to overuse. But a flat out denial of the historical lesson is your own fallacy.
As an academic exercise, you can defend Putin’s obviously militaristic criminal behavior. But I have yet to see any reasonable basis for his unilateral action of invasion and slaughter. I doubt you are able to spell it out. What on Earth could ever conceivably “justify” his acts of war and his war crimes?
Then again, Putin doesn't have an agreement with Germany to split Poland as Hitler and Stalin did with the Von Ribbentrop- Molotov Pact.That's actually an apt comparison, imo. Sudetenland, and maybe better, the Czech's, were simply trying to live lives, but they didn't have mutual protection treaties. Poland did and does. And so do the Baltics.
So does Nato need to pre-empt Putin before he gets to the Baltics? (or Poland, which I think could stand up to the Russians if they already had the Abrams tanks we've promised).
And Moldova has been contributing to Nato's common defense and their military is integrated with Nato, even though they are not a member state. Russia intervened there in 1990 sort of as they did in Ukraine and Donbass.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Cuban KopechnesPerhaps, but such actions define the notion of sovereignty. Good or ill all nations must be able to act in their own iinterests regardless of popular opinion lest they be vassals to the powerful.
