Russia and Ukraine

[Irreligious Atheist]

Full on lord farquat shit.  Some Ukrainians may die, but that’s a sacrifice a Canadian is willing to make.

At least we’re finally done bullshitting people about concern for Ukrainians, eh?  Probably why you think no one gives a shit.  We all imagine that other people think like we do.

A Canadian? No one in the world is doing a no-fly zone, so bringing up Canada is not relevant. Stop acting like I'm in the minority on this or something when I'm just aligning with every government on planet earth in thinking that the risk of not knowing what Russia may do after having its' planes shot out of the sky is not a gamble any country is willing to take. It's called not being entirely reckless, and no, we can't save every life.

[The Architect Of Fate]

A Canadian? No one in the world is doing a no-fly zone, so bringing up Canada is not relevant. Stop acting like I'm in the minority on this or something when I'm just aligning with every government on planet earth in thinking that the risk of not knowing what Russia may do after having its' planes shot out of the sky is not a gamble any country is willing to take. It's called not being entirely reckless, and no, we can't save every life.

Again it's only dangerous if Russia ignores it and no one is  going to use nukes .....


Also, Russia has been losing planes left and right.....

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, me and the rest of the entire world are willing to let Russia indiscriminately bomb cities. If my choices are that or possible WWIII, one is the lesser of two evils and far less people die in that scenario. I'll take millions of less deaths if those are my options.

Weren't you the one complaining that America is using Ukrainians to further its aims?

And now here you are, suggesting that you find it appropriate to sacrifice Ukrainians to further your own asserted aims. You clearly don't have much logical coherence.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes, me and the rest of the entire world are willing to let Russia indiscriminately bomb cities. If my choices are that or possible WWIII, one is the lesser of two evils and far less people die in that scenario. I'll take millions of less deaths if those are my options.

Weren't you the one complaining that America is using Ukrainians to further its aims?

And now here you are, suggesting that you find it appropriate to sacrifice Ukrainians to further your own asserted aims. You clearly don't have much logical coherence.

Your talking to the person whose solution is to cower before a sociopath like Putin. Coherence is the least of his issues.

[Angrboda]

We faced similar questions when Russia invaded Crimea. We've seen where that path leads. You're not saving Ukrainians or Europeans by acquiescing. Nor can you offer any assurances that Putin will stop with the Donbas or even all of Ukraine because he's not stopped in the past, so any assurances that he will are hollow. And nobody knows this better than Ukraine, which is why they've chosen to fight, not this stupid idea that they are only fighting because of U.S. support.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Russia and Ukraine agreed to a tentative settlement in April, but then the UK PM flew to Kiev to scuttle it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Weren't you the one complaining that America is using Ukrainians to further its aims?

And now here you are, suggesting that you find it appropriate to sacrifice Ukrainians to further your own asserted aims. You clearly don't have much logical coherence.

Your talking to the person whose solution is to cower before a sociopath like Putin. Coherence is the least of his issues.

I'm not interested in personal attacks, but in pointing out issues with the arguments being laid.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Your talking to the person whose solution is to cower before a sociopath like Putin. Coherence is the least of his issues.

I'm not interested in personal attacks, but in pointing out issues with the arguments being laid.

Me too, And his position is to kneel before Putin. That I believe alone Trumps any issue with coherence. That position alone is indefensible.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Russia and Ukraine agreed to a tentative settlement in April, but then the UK PM flew to Kiev to scuttle it.

This assumes it was a good settlement and that the UK PM was in the wrong to scuttle it. A bad settlement is almost worst than war.

It's also total BS

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/01/did-...nd-russia/

[Irreligious Atheist]

Yes, me and the rest of the entire world are willing to let Russia indiscriminately bomb cities. If my choices are that or possible WWIII, one is the lesser of two evils and far less people die in that scenario. I'll take millions of less deaths if those are my options.

Weren't you the one complaining that America is using Ukrainians to further its aims?

And now here you are, suggesting that you find it appropriate to sacrifice Ukrainians to further your own asserted aims. You clearly don't have much logical coherence.

My own asserted aims to not get sucked into WWIII? Doesn't every rational person on the planet want to avoid a third world war if possible? Isn't that why not one European government, or the American government, is willing to risk a no-fly zone, which is a massively neo-con position? I am not morally responsible for what happens to Ukrainians because Russia is the one killing them, not me. If I say I want to stay out of it, I am not morally responsible for what someone else chooses to do. If I said I supported giving Ukraine billions in weapons, THEN I would be in part responsible for the deaths, because I'm arguing for the artificial prolonging of the war and rising piles of bodies. That's a totally different story.