“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.

  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Warmonger. Don’t the Ukrainians get a say in whether the US can sacrifice so many people for US goals?

    • BrooklynMan@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s funny how you blame the US for Russia’s invasion and pretend like Ukraine didn’t ask for our help.

          • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s irrelevant who I blame for the war.

            I’ll explain.

            The are several interpretations of what I said. Yours among them. But I am now confirming, for the second time, that I did not mean what you think I meant.

            Two other valid interpretations, which I did intend, include: (1) that the US and it’s executives and diplomats are warmongers; and (2) that Ukrainian demands are for the Ukrainians alone to determine.

            The war is now an historical fact. Who started it is a significant issue but is neither here nor there for the point that I’m making. I’ll elaborate on that point so as to put a stop to the evident confusion.

            Peace will not be reached for so long as the US seeks profits in (a) selling weapons and (b) the reconstruction of Ukraine. The longer the war and the more destruction it causes, the more profit in it for the US.

            The US is interested in Ukraine only insofar as it reaps these profits. I say nothing of ordinary Americans, who are likely genuinely and rightly appalled at the war and hope for the US to end it. Unfortunately, if they hope for this, they do not know their government nor it’s financial interests. That is tragic, because if they did know, they might better help to end this war and many others.

            The true ends of those decision makers (in the US and in Europe, too) are clear in statements like those in the linked article. If peace was the aim, the US would not be making demands that it knows Russia will never agree to. Are Russia’s demands acceptable? It’s again beside the point.

            The question is, what is the quickest way to end the war? The answer to that question will reveal the steps that must be taken. I struggle to see how inflammatory warmongering statements from a known warmonger state could ever be part of that answer or those steps.

            • BrooklynMan@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              it’s irrelevant who you blame because your argument is a strawman and tu quoque logical fallacy.

              Russia, and Russia alone is to blame for the war in Ukraine, as they are the ones who invaded and refuse to leave. The war will end only when they leave, regardless of how much you try to deflect blame onto anyone else.

              edit: and the fact that you call the US a “warmonger” simply for helping Ukraine defend itself reminds me of this:

              “DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”

              have a nice day.

              • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.

                I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history. Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.

                No amount of ‘just war’ will cancel out what the US did to Iraq or Libya or Vietnam or Laos or any number of other military atrocities.

                • BrooklynMan@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.

                  i never agreed to that

                  I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history

                  now you’re just changing your argument again by moving the goalposts to yet another tu quoque fallacy.

                  Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.

                  so, you even admit that your earlier assertions aren’t necessarily factual, you’re just arguing in bad faith because you have a grudge about what the US did in the past, which has no bearing hereand is therefore irrelevant. like I said: a straw man and a tu quoque logical fallacy. in other words: bullshit. You just don’t like the US, and you’ll malign them for helping Ukraine defend itself, regardless of the merits, which you, yourself admit.

                  Your argument is no based in facts, it’s based in your agenda of anger and bitterness.

                  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.

                    i never agreed to that

                    Why are you insisting that I meant what I have said I did not mean? I understand that your interpretation of what I said is one valid interpretation. But I am confirming again that it is not the intended meaning of my words.

                    I called the US a warmonger. You replied:

                    and the fact that you call the US a “warmonger” simply for helping Ukraine defend itself …

                    I confirmed:

                    I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history.

                    You responded:

                    now you’re just changing your argument again moving the goalposts to yet another tu quoque fallacy.

                    But I haven’t changed what I said. There was a misunderstanding and I clarified what I meant. I’ll do so again. My point—the same as it was in my first comment—is that the US is a warmonger. It is a warmonger because it is constantly starting and prosecuting wars. The goalposts are exactly where I left them.

                    I wrote:

                    Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.

                    To which you replied:

                    so, you even admit that your earlier assertions aren’t necessarily factual

                    This is a misunderstanding. The words ‘even if’ are conditional. They mean, in case I am wrong about US motivations in this war, the US is still a warmonger for all the other wars it has caused and prosecuted. So I can be wrong about this war and still right about the generalisation. This is the same point, to reiterate, that I have made from the beginning.

                    you have a grudge about what the US did in the past

                    The US and it’s allies killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. In my lifetime. Why should I not be bitter and angry at such a crime? At the lack of justice? The people responsible are still free and there have been no apologies. What I have is an accurate description of the US: warmonger.

                    Yes, I will continue to say this. Until the day the US apologises and finds a way to make reparations. And not just for Iraq but for all the other places it has destroyed in it’s lust for profit. Because until that day, I will refuse to believe that the US has changed it’s ways. And if it has not changed it’s ways, then it remains what it has always been: a warmonger.

                  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Classic liberal - “history doesn’t matter, the only things that matter are within the contextual boundaries I draw that support my assertions. No, you’re the fallacy!”

                    Pure brain rot

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US has been encircling Russia and China for decades with nuclear weapons and nuclear first strike capabilities. The idea that Russia just up and invaded Ukraine for no reason is a Western liberal construction that requires memoryholing the last 25 years of US/NATO aggression, expansion, and nuclear development.