No, is not for this thread but im not the enforcer so as you wish
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
It’s literally a thread made for this discussion so the other one can be more current event-oriented. It allows one to blame anything & everything on the US. You should be welcoming it with open arms.
I see. So US good. Never speak bad of it in a conflict that is a main actor in the thread of the conflict itself. Black and white. Just one side
Is just a matter of alliegence like a futbol fan
Is just a matter of alliegence like a futbol fan
Nobody said that, but sure.
Dont need to say things when they are actions
True that what i said it was controversial and you and other might not like it, but man up and listen what it was completely on topic even if you dont like it, then we can discuss. But if not is just parroting over and over the same. I agree in the core of the conflict, but there ia no dicussion on the core bc we all agree. Is a forum and finding other views had to be expected
This is literally a thread so you can discuss it. Nobody is stopping you from posting anything, it just got moved to the right place. Post about it to your heart’s content.
Yes, im going to discuss alone in an empty room. That you sent me too by force
As i said it was on topic, but im not an enforcer so as you wish
48 page thread full of folks talking about what you wanna talk about. You’ll be fine.
Again, no. It was on topic but im not an enforcer that has the luxury to sent away someone went doesnt like negative opinions of US on ukraine war in the ukraine war thread. But as you wish
South America and Middle East have almost nothing in common with what is happening in Ukraine.
2014 protests would have never happened if Putin didn't force Yanukovych to go back on a previously agreed and promised trade deal. Were they doing US bidding as well?
If Russia doesn't invade, all of this doesn't happen. It is their own fault. They had grand delusions of being a major power while it now shows they are no match for Western weapons and intel.
Similarly you would be called incredibly naive and deluded to think American politicians who have happily burned entire countries to the ground for nothing but their own political benefits, given birth and empowered terrorist organisations that have gone on to terrorize and kill people on a global scale give a rat's ass about people of Ukraine. The US has been a genocidal state for ages, and the biggest contributor for loss of life globally during the modern era.
Ah, should've checked who I was replying to. Waste of time.
Which is a problem because the US should be part of your frame of reference within the CE thread. Segregating the threads has just led to two different echo chambers. One where it's all the US and another where it's all Russia. Both are incorrect. And the point was never to blame everything on the US, that's just the impression Americans (and some Europeans) tend to get because they go on the defensive.
Who says it’s not part of my frame of reference? Jesus fecking christ, the sanctimoniousness.
The hysteria! Point proven.
It was a general comment, calm down maybe.
In no way am I riled up, just commenting on the perceived moral high ground you often take, yet fail spectacularly.there's no moral high ground.
You said it.
This thread feels like it was created to just dismiss people's opinions in the main thread. Some are straight out propaganda, sure, but any valid posts seem to be moved here when they perfectly fit the main invasion thread.
To keep any logic though, why aren't whataboutism posts in others threads (the palestine one being the most obvious) also moved?
To keep any logic though, why aren't whataboutism posts in others threads (the palestine one being the most obvious) also moved?
"Whataboutism" is mostly a propaganda term. There are some off-topic posts that should be put in here, or a similar thread, but abstract points aside, most of which I've made and would be off-topic in other threads, there's lots here by other people that could be fine in the main thread. There aren't many "whataboutist" posts in the Palestine thread. There are off-topic posts, and posts that run contrary to received opinion (no names), but to call them "whatabout" type posts is to fall into the same propaganda hole.
Posts like "we created a thread for that" (which are exclusive to the primary war thread and non-existent in other CE topics) just reiterate the points made re the manufacture of consent. What goes here or doesn't is entirely subjective and so if it moves against the grain then chances are it will be deemed more appropriate for this thread. That means fewer contrary positions, which would make sense if the main thread were just a twitter update thread, but it isn't.
There's no ideal fix. People wade in (or used to) and make remarks that could derail the thread for hours and which could easily just be put here (but also derail this thread). Those are people who haven't read. Happens in every thread, though. There are so few reliable war-time updates right now, can't believe Russia and the US/Ukraine also openly dealing in lies/propaganda and telling you so, that the point of the original thread has sort of been lost anyway.
I don't agree with this. Whataboutism is very specific in what it means. If someone goes "but what about the US helping SA?" in the ukraine thread that's whataboutism. But talking about events that led to the war and are critical of nato get branded the same way. I disagree with the majority of these posts but they are not whataboutism.
Yeah, fair point. It depends on the context, though. You could make the US/SA point if it were in response to something else, like someone talking about Russia's support for Syria, and it would be legitimate (or insofar as this has been called autocracy versus democracy, US support for autocracy shatters that master narrative and forces us to reframe it according to reality rather than myth).
the part in bold is pretty much what I think, too, anyway.
"There is only the ladder. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, are given a chance to climb."
One of the greatest quotes in the history of movies or television and very appropriate here.
I agree with that. If posters in the othet thread have a conversation about Russia doing bad stuff in 2014 etc., nothing gets moved. The irritation and subsequent move usually happen only when there is criticism of the US, NATO, or Ukraine.
That's not to say that I agree with all of it, etcetera, but the line between that thread and this one is definitely not just the difference between 'events' and 'context discussion'.
I don't really get this. None of us here on the forum are fighting this war. I would get this coming from a military commander talking to his unit, or within Ukraine more broadly. But why would we self-censor ourselves here on the forum?
Hyperbolic hysteria.
The American politicians who don't "give a rat's ass about people of Ukraine" mostly all belong to from the Trump cult with their selfish "America First" nonsense and dislike of real democracy. It's a mixture of tired old cynicism and psychological projection to believe that every politician is some terrible monster, when in fact most are fairly decent people and ordinary human beings like the rest of us.
The politicians (from both parties) in fact work for the major industries. They are not evil per se. They accept that US international domination and the consequences of same is preferable to Russian or Chinese.
To attach the terms 'fairly decent people and ordinary human beings like the rest of us' reflects a lack of understanding of what they do.
I think theres an element of war time propoganda that people accept and seek. I kind of get it, its pretty significant re morale and i think theres an element of pulling together to show a unified front. I kind of view a lot of the media and even this forums reaction to how the ukraine war is talked about kind of fitting that idea. Dissent and objective balance are kind of temporarily abandoned to protect a simplistic, uncomplicated good vs evil narrative that people engaged in the war can latch onto.
‘Most’ might be a stretch.
Apparently according to you, when someone stands for election - if they win and get elected, they are somehow transformed from a person into bloodthirsty and cruel monster.
Sorry, but that's childish projection and nothing to do with how most politicians actually are in themselves. I repeat, most politicians within democracies are reasonably decent people. You might agree or disagree with some of their views, but they mostly do not go around wishing harm on others or lusting after death and destruction.
There are exceptions of course, especially amongst Trump cult true believers, but these remain exceptions.
Again
Most politicians who make foreign policy decisions, including civil servants who advise them, are sociopaths.
Again
Most politicians who make foreign policy decisions, including civil servants who advise them, are sociopaths.
I see that your apparent claims have now been pared down to only "politicians who make foreign policy decisions". Within this, someone who was formerly Minister for Pensions (say) and is then moved across to the Foreign Office, somehow becomes a sociopath. Do enlighten me as to the mysterious alchemical process involved in this dramatic transformation.
But otherwise, spare us the pop psychology.
Where are you finding the benevolence in politicians making decisions about war? Every US president post-WWII is technically a war criminal by their own standards, those instituted at Nuremburg.
As for pop psychology. I'm calling people sociopaths because they profit from things like Yemen, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq-Iran, Ukraine (half of congress speculated on the war, insider info!), Libya, and basically every notable mass murdering event in recent history. Millions dead and no calls for inquiries into war crimes and "ill gotten gains".
You, meanwhile, are using psychics as evidence of Putin's mindstate. I'd say you're the only one projecting here.
It's evident right across Europe and N. America in choosing to help Ukraine defend itself against Putin's invasion. Beyond that, I can no longer be bothered to respond to you. Have fun in the cynicism-dripping, pop psychological, everything-is-bad, nothing-is-good, tired and jaded old world that you seem to inhabit. Over and out.
I disagree that talking about the role of the US in the Ukraine thread isn’t whataboutism. It absolutely is. Every single nation on earth will use leverage and make deals and attempt to persuade every other country to take actions to their benefit or that are mutually beneficial. To say that the US and the actions of NATO are a key reason why Russia invaded is rubbish because Russia also engaged in such attempts. The line was crossed when it resorted to force. At that point you’ve gone from what is normal in the world of politics and international relations to something that’s not normal and not acceptable.
again, you rely on psychics for your evidence but I use evidence which implies that politicians profit financially from war, including Ukraine.
you've adopted Ukraine as your temporary host country for whatever reason so this is pointless.
Eight years ago, then.
Yes. The weak international response was a mistake. A stronger response in 2014 might have prevented the current war.
Initiating a coup and shelling the Eastern Russian speaking region of Ukraine was a strong response. It led to Putin's annexation of Crimea and to where we are today. The intl community, made up of NATO, responded strongly.