lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I get the reliance on history when you are looking for how this (the Ukraine conflict) might end but should we not be looking towards moving away from violence re-defining boarders as opposed to accepting that might makes right given our collective history?
It's like saying the US used nukes so there is precedence for our using nukes. In one respect, it is an accurate statement. In another, it is completely nuts.
I spend a lot of time talking with those that do not share my beliefs. I do it in part to better understand how others around me can not see simple plain reality (or to understand why I have such a delusional understanding of my environment) and the other is to tempt them into thought exercises that challenge their views/positions with respect to reality. It's frustrating but feels necessary.
With the above in mind, Russia using a nuke followed by the West working collectively using conventional forces to eradicate Russian forces from the Black Sea and Ukrainian territory seems like a terrible, horrible, awful but correct response. Using a nuke will accelerate your loosing the battle in Ukraine. We will not respond with nukes as they are simply off the table. Find another way out.
The alternative are concessions for threatening the use of nukes. Susan Collins said she thought the x learned a lesson when she conceded her conviction vote in the first impeachment. She was correct, he did and the lesson was not a good one. Anyone that has raised a child free of temper tantrums understands this.
As far as who should be making what decisions about how the war is prosecuted, sure, the golden rule does apply. The suppliers of weapons can control the pace and direction of the conflict. That said, this is a proxy war for freedom (as Ukraine has properly framed it). You either support it financially with little restriction (read - stay out of Russia as we are not supporting a land grab) or you support increasing the suffering, death and destruction in Ukraine. Only the Ukrainians should be determining what concessions, if any, are ever made as they have to live with the consequences of those decisions. I simply can not image the pain and guilt that would be involved with a concious decision to give up territory to an entity that considers the people in that territory to be sub-human and treats them that way.
I'm not a "big thinker" when it comes to right and wrong. There are always nuances but they should never be used as a distraction/excuse to do "wrong". In my experience, the correct path is seldom the easiest.
It's like saying the US used nukes so there is precedence for our using nukes. In one respect, it is an accurate statement. In another, it is completely nuts.
I spend a lot of time talking with those that do not share my beliefs. I do it in part to better understand how others around me can not see simple plain reality (or to understand why I have such a delusional understanding of my environment) and the other is to tempt them into thought exercises that challenge their views/positions with respect to reality. It's frustrating but feels necessary.
With the above in mind, Russia using a nuke followed by the West working collectively using conventional forces to eradicate Russian forces from the Black Sea and Ukrainian territory seems like a terrible, horrible, awful but correct response. Using a nuke will accelerate your loosing the battle in Ukraine. We will not respond with nukes as they are simply off the table. Find another way out.
The alternative are concessions for threatening the use of nukes. Susan Collins said she thought the x learned a lesson when she conceded her conviction vote in the first impeachment. She was correct, he did and the lesson was not a good one. Anyone that has raised a child free of temper tantrums understands this.
As far as who should be making what decisions about how the war is prosecuted, sure, the golden rule does apply. The suppliers of weapons can control the pace and direction of the conflict. That said, this is a proxy war for freedom (as Ukraine has properly framed it). You either support it financially with little restriction (read - stay out of Russia as we are not supporting a land grab) or you support increasing the suffering, death and destruction in Ukraine. Only the Ukrainians should be determining what concessions, if any, are ever made as they have to live with the consequences of those decisions. I simply can not image the pain and guilt that would be involved with a concious decision to give up territory to an entity that considers the people in that territory to be sub-human and treats them that way.
I'm not a "big thinker" when it comes to right and wrong. There are always nuances but they should never be used as a distraction/excuse to do "wrong". In my experience, the correct path is seldom the easiest.
!) and hundreds of other politicians. This morning I opened my favourite Dutch news web site and am greeted by a fresh article about it, with hundreds of negative comments about Elon and Tesla. 
