|
What is the most powerful flying bug? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 🦋 |
|
15 | 3.71% |
| 🦇 |
|
115 | 28.47% |
| 🪰 |
|
12 | 2.97% |
| 🐦 |
|
67 | 16.58% |
| dragonfly |
|
94 | 23.27% |
| 🦟 |
|
14 | 3.47% |
| 🐝 |
|
87 | 21.53% |
| Total: | 404 votes | ||
|
January 6 Survivor posted:why not? name me one thing the SS did that was bad or unethical... Reminder that this is now literally the Canadian government position due to pressure from the Ukrainian lobby, decided in a federal ruling.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
January 6 Survivor posted:why not? name me one thing the SS did that was bad or unethical... (shaking fist at sky) Those fiends!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:01
|
|
|
lol, cnn. incredible grift https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/24/opinions/fareed-zakaria-ukraine-column/index.html quote:Opinion: There is a path to ending the Ukraine war
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:02
|
|
|
moron also bad father
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:03
|
|
|
do Ukrainians have a long cherished goal of joining the west ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:do Ukrainians have a long cherished goal of joining the west ? yes. they have cherished it for very long. as did russia some time ago...
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:do Ukrainians have a long cherished goal of joining the west ? Western finance has a long cherished goal of exploiting Ukraine, which is why this plan is dead on arrival. The Donbass region holds the richest mineral wealth and significant heavy industry, no way they're going to give Russia even a shot at taking it. Although lol at the continued insistence that Ukraine must destroy Crimea to rescue it from the vicious oppressors
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:14
|
|
|
“We need you for leverage”
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:17
|
|
|
Also the whole 'illegal' war thing exists wholly to create the idea of 'legal' wars, so the average idiot can say that imperial wars of conquest in Iraq and Afghanistan were good, legal wars because [file not found], unlike the perfidious Russian orcs and their illegal wars of imperial conquest Its just a rhetorical device for the worst people to indulge in a little moralism
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
Turtle Watch posted:Of course if you believe that the law and morals are the same thing, and the US is a good guy upholding International Norms I suppose this does not seem jarring. I don't think the US is seen as a good guy per se, it's just that whenever something scary happens and is amplified in the media, they're already halfway through the B-52 takeoff checklist. Something has to be done because there's suffering, and there is already a clearly appointed bad guy presumably, and also the past is not a good indication of how things will go so gently caress it I guess? Nix Panicus posted:Also the whole 'illegal' war thing exists wholly to create the idea of 'legal' wars, so the average idiot can say that imperial wars of conquest in Iraq and Afghanistan were good, legal wars because [file not found], unlike the perfidious Russian orcs and their illegal wars of imperial conquest I've never seen the explicit use of "legal war" because I think that would actually make people think about how it's weird that you would add that qualifier, as if you're trying to hide facts and steamroll people. "Just war" is definitely something that can be applied retroactively for people to feel good about though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:23
|
|
|
I don’t think people in the west will like the results of they run this war through just war analysis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
Just War is inapplicable except for fighting the Vandals in the Province of Africa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I don’t think people in the west will like the results of they run this war through just war analysis. it's just words bro, it's fine
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:30
|
|
|
Leandros posted:I've never seen the explicit use of "legal war" because I think that would actually make people think about how it's weird that you would add that qualifier, as if you're trying to hide facts and steamroll people. "Just war" is definitely something that can be applied retroactively for people to feel good about though. Yeah, thats why nobody says 'legal war', because it would be very weird to do so, but they love to say 'illegal war' even though its just as weird. Nobody really examines negative modifiers attributed to the hated enemy in the same way they might think twice about a positive modifier attached to something they might inherently feel ambivalent about. The point is saying 'illegal war' allows the propaganda poisoned to cast the enemy as extra bad for doing not only war, but the bad kind of war (unlike the good kinds of war the good guys engage in).
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
January 6 Survivor posted:why not? name me one thing the SS did that was bad or unethical... yeah i mean there's a reason we call the best things "S-tier", it literally means "almost as good as the SS".
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:47
|
|
|
Or, to put it more concretely, many of the same people who condemn Russia's no good very bad illegal war would turn around and cheer for a Ukrainian counter offensive that conquered Moscow and killed its citizens because that would be the good kind of war and Russia would have it coming. They wouldnt call it a 'legal war' because legal still doesnt mean anything in the context of war, but it would be the opposite of the Russia's illegal war. Shorter: its propaganda
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:48
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Yeah, thats why nobody says 'legal war', because it would be very weird to do so, but they love to say 'illegal war' even though its just as weird. Nobody really examines negative modifiers attributed to the hated enemy in the same way they might think twice about a positive modifier attached to something they might inherently feel ambivalent about. The point is saying 'illegal war' allows the propaganda poisoned to cast the enemy as extra bad for doing not only war, but the bad kind of war (unlike the good kinds of war the good guys engage in). Well a "legal war" would be a war preceded by a formal declaration of war, setting out the justification etc. It's just nobody does that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:02
|
|
|
Leandros posted:Calling it illegal is generally just a high and mighty judgement and not something even remotely based on legal grounds because that would require effort to build the case for it. Meh, UN does that work. Hence why Annan said the US/UK/AUS/POL invasion of Iraq was illegal, UN chief said Russia’s invasion here is against the charter, and UNGA voted overwhelmingly (141-5) condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It turns out countries who decide to go invading just don’t care about the UN charter when it suits them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:11
|
|
|
Exactly, Russia wants the natural resources in Donbas. NATO etc etc is just the excuse given which is why capitulating won't work unless they get to keep Donbas. And it's also why Ukraine wants to keep it and why this was inevitable once the invasion happened. That Crimea was taken easily was never a guarantee it would be kept, Ukraine took that time after to build itself up prepare for taking it back. It was inevitable this would eventually happen. Sure you could say Crimea was taken 'easily' at that time, but neither side was actually satisfied with that resolution and hunkered down to prepare for further conflict. It's not that there was no war from the conflict, it's that Putin was able to put off the war from the taking of Crimea until now. It's a resource war which is why I can't get on board treating it as an ideological war of the West trying to stamp out Russia and driving them to it with no way out but to invade. I mean, the US will absolutely take a chance to gently caress up the region now that its unstable. And absolutely helped destabilize it. But Russia has its own needs and wants here to, it wasn't just some scared child that was whoopsie manipulated into an accidental war. Russia wanted Donbas and will come up with any reasoning to make it seem justified to invade, including that this resource-rich region incredibly important to trade would suddenly be a danger to them if they didn't. StrangersInTheNight has issued a correction as of 14:19 on Mar 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:12
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Meh, UN does that work. Hence why Annan said the US/UK/AUS/POL invasion of Iraq was illegal, UN chief said Russia’s invasion here is against the charter, and UNGA voted overwhelmingly (141-5) condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That is not an overwhelming vote condemning Russia. In fact considering the abstentions they were rather embarrassing for the USA. The UNGA is mostly completely absurd and dumb. euphronius has issued a correction as of 14:19 on Mar 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:16
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Exactly, Russia wants the natural resources in Donbas. NATO etc etc is just the excuse given which is why capitulating won't work unless they get to keep Donbas. And it's also why Ukraine wants to keep it and why this was inevitable once the invasion happened. That Crimea was taken easily was never a guarantee it would be kept, Ukraine took that time after to build itself up prepare for taking it back. It was inevitable this would eventually happen. The Donbass and Easter Ukraine have resources but Russia also has plenty of them too, they aren’t running out of coal or agricultural land. The fact they are going in just some them considering all of what is going on is not credible tbh. This entire thing very clearly started with Euromadian and has led down this path, the problem with the Russians being passive and half assing it until they really had no other choice then they screwed that up as well. Eventually they figured out they needed to fight a real war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:20
|
|
|
Yeah this is less about resources and more about Putin's revanchist expansionism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
The thorny little problem is that if one of the players is a permanent member of the security council(e.g. has nukes) then the cost of law enforcement is likely existence. Maybe there's a better world where that's not true, but like, here in America we passed an act of law authorizing the invasion of the hague should anyone try to hold are boys to account, sooo.... it's not this one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Yeah this is less about resources and more about Putin's revanchist expansionism. It seemed like Putin didn’t have an issue until 2014 for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:NATO etc etc is just the excuse given which is why capitulating won't work StrangersInTheNight posted:That Crimea was taken easily was never a guarantee it would be kept, Ukraine took that time after to build itself up prepare for taking it back. StrangersInTheNight posted:Russia wanted Donbas and will come up with any reasoning to make it seem justified to invade
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:31
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Exactly, Russia wants the natural resources in Donbas. NATO etc etc is just the excuse given which is why capitulating won't work unless they get to keep Donbas. And it's also why Ukraine wants to keep it and why this was inevitable once the invasion happened. That Crimea was taken easily was never a guarantee it would be kept, Ukraine took that time after to build itself up prepare for taking it back. It was inevitable this would eventually happen. Sure you could say Crimea was taken 'easily' at that time, but neither side was actually satisfied with that resolution and hunkered down to prepare for further conflict. It's not that there was no war from the conflict, it's that Putin was able to put off the war from the taking of Crimea until now. Let's assume you are correct, that this is merely a dispute over resources. Why is America getting involved? It's literally on a different continent on the opposite end of the earth. Why is this conflict so much more important than, say, the war in Yemen that western powers are happy to fund? Is there any part of the world where America should not involve itself?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That is not an overwhelming vote condemning Russia. In fact considering the abstentions they were rather embarrassing for the USA. The math works out such that I’d say 141-5 with 35 abstentions is overwhelming. Maybe you’d prefer I said that 2.9% of the UNGA voted in direct opposition to condemning the Russian invasion. And a combined 23.4% either voted against condemnation or abstained from voting. The remainder directly condemned the invasion. If you just generally think the UNGA is absurd and dumb, fine, that can be your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:34
|
|
|
once again we go back to history nato solely exists to essentially "destroy" or contain russia thats it. the soviet union tried joining and even russia back in the early 2000's attempted talks about potentially joining or forming some kind of defensive sphere. if your russia and you have some military alliance that solely exists against you how do you expect they will react. it doesnt excuse russias invasion but it gives reasons and perspective that this mess goes back like 60 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The math works out such that I’d say 141-5 with 30ish abstentions is overwhelming. Maybe you’d prefer I said that 2.9% of the UNGA voted in direct opposition to condemning the Russian invasion. And a combined 23.4% either voted against condemnation or abstained from voting. The remainder directly condemned the invasion. You are equating the vote of like Antigua and Barbuda, Kiribati or Norway with large important countries like China. Its dumb
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Exactly, Russia wants the natural resources in Donbas. NATO etc etc is just the excuse given which is why capitulating won't work unless they get to keep Donbas. And it's also why Ukraine wants to keep it and why this was inevitable once the invasion happened. That Crimea was taken easily was never a guarantee it would be kept, Ukraine took that time after to build itself up prepare for taking it back. It was inevitable this would eventually happen. Sure you could say Crimea was taken 'easily' at that time, but neither side was actually satisfied with that resolution and prepared for further conflict. It's not that there was no war from the conflict, it's that Putin was able to put off the war from the taking of Crimea until now. So if they wanted the resources of the Donbas why didn't they take it when it was easy? When they had the democratically elected president of Ukraine in Moscow and the Ukrainian army was completely incapable and unwilling of putting up a fight? Before the Banderite version of national identity got entrenched in the power structure? On what basis did you conclude that Russia isn't really concerned about NATO encirclement as they keep saying, or the preservation of their Black Sea fleet, which was the first thing they made sure of when the Maidan peeps took over, but some minerals in the Donbas? What do you think is buried there compared with all of Siberia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You are equating the vote of like Antigua and Barbuda, Kiribati or Norway with large important countries like China. Its dumb The UNGA doesn’t weight votes by population, that’s true. It sounds like you just don’t like the UNGA construct. That’s fine, you are allowed to say the UNGA votes don’t count. Plenty of countries do that exact thing when they feel like invading or sanctions or whatever, UN resolutions be damned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
Arguably, in economic terms, the Donbas was a lot more critical to Ukraine than Russia, it used to the core of Ukrainian heavy industry (and part of the reason towns across the region have large industrial sectors). However, before 2014, there wasn’t any real sign of aggression from Russia, expect after a particular event that happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The UNGA doesn’t weight votes by population, that’s true. no you said the UNGA "overwhelmingly" condemned Russia's SMO. I was merely pointing out this was not true, in fact the vote was a pretty big black eye for the USA and evidence that the USA is losing its hegemonic hold. There rest of that stuff you made up as you do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:43
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Exactly, Russia wants the natural resources in Donbas. NATO etc etc is just the excuse given which is why capitulating won't work unless they get to keep Donbas. And it's also why Ukraine wants to keep it and why this was inevitable once the invasion happened. That Crimea was taken easily was never a guarantee it would be kept, Ukraine took that time after to build itself up prepare for taking it back. It was inevitable this would eventually happen. Sure you could say Crimea was taken 'easily' at that time, but neither side was actually satisfied with that resolution and hunkered down to prepare for further conflict. It's not that there was no war from the conflict, it's that Putin was able to put off the war from the taking of Crimea until now. For Ukraine and the western powers its mortgaged the country to the Donbass is all about resources and industry. For Russia its also about that, but the casus belli there is Ukraine being a bunch of racist dicks to the majority ethnic Russian population who lives there. The DPR and LPR are a direct response to the western coup that put a right wing anti-Russian (the ethnicity) government in charge. Those regions accepted Ukrainian rule when Ukraine was run by a Russia leaning government, but didn't like their prospects under a western coup government. Again, look what happened to the Crimean government in 1995. Ukraine has a track record. This is all Ukraine's fault for being turbo racist basically, which is why this 'resource war' is also an ideological war between revanchist Russia acting on a pretext casus belli to protect ethnic Russians against a western backed right wing Ukraine descending into fascism If the west hadnt orchestrated a right wing coup in 2014 to move Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence to the EUs there probably wouldnt be a war right now. gently caress the US, gently caress the EU, gently caress Ukraine, gently caress Russia. Praise China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
I think maybe I should have posted that book about the underlying reasons for the conflict in Ukraine AFTER the GBS refugees had started coming in so we might not have to argue with things like "its about Putin's revanchism"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
Also Crimea wasn't 'taken' so much as 'defected to Russia at the first opportunity post Maidan coup'
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:no you said the UNGA "overwhelmingly" condemned Russia's SMO. I was merely pointing out this was not true, in fact the vote was a pretty big black eye for the USA and evidence that the USA is losing its hegemonic hold. 131 condemned the invasion. 5 voted against condemning the invasion. 35 abstained. This was in 2022. What are you actually trying to say here? Is 133-5 overwhelming, but 131-5 isn't? Where is your personal cutoff for the word "overwhelming?" You also did get upset that the UN measures votes equally, regardless of population. Okay, in light of this complaint, I tallied up the population of the countries who voted against condemning the invasion in February of 2023 when the UNGA re-addressed the issue. Here's the percentage of the Earth population, based on countries where the UN representative voted against condemning Russia's invasion. I rounded each of them up to the nearest whole million, so 5 million and one people counts as six million, just to maximize the "against" votes: 2.98% of the world population's leadership reps at the UN voted AGAINST the newer February 2023 resolution. https://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre/status/1628858093072224256/photo/1 You can do your own math if you want to count abstentions as supporting Russia's invasion. mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 14:56 on Mar 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:so apparently wagner took out the literal Boris Johnson Brigade: SS Panzergrenadierdivision борис джонсон
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I think maybe I should have posted that book about the underlying reasons for the conflict in Ukraine AFTER the GBS refugees had started coming in so we might not have to argue with things like "its about Putin's revanchism" good luck 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Exactly, Russia wants the natural resources in Donbas. NATO etc etc is just the excuse given which is why capitulating won't work unless they get to keep Donbas. And it's also why Ukraine wants to keep it and why this was inevitable once the invasion happened. That Crimea was taken easily was never a guarantee it would be kept, Ukraine took that time after to build itself up prepare for taking it back. It was inevitable this would eventually happen. Sure you could say Crimea was taken 'easily' at that time, but neither side was actually satisfied with that resolution and hunkered down to prepare for further conflict. It's not that there was no war from the conflict, it's that Putin was able to put off the war from the taking of Crimea until now. What is 'stamping out Russia' to you and how many Russians need to be dead for it to be sufficiently stamped out to you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 14:57
|
|
