KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

I don't think you're reviewing the evidence, or if you are, you interpreting it through your own biased lens. There is ample evidence Russia has engaged in human rights abuses and is targeting infrastructure, including Ukrainian power grids.

I see no evidence of a stated or implied policy of wanting Russia broken up. I do see efforts to counter Russian bad acts in the world - of which there are many. Between cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage, interference, and now invading sovereign countries, we have ample evidence of Russia aggression in the world today. Putin is a guy who takes advantage of situations, and obviously, he sees a weak president in Biden he can take advantage of.

With respect to your last paragraph, what countries currently pose a threat to Russia?

Again, if Russia is justified in invading for the stated reason of denazification, merely taking small portions of Ukraine makes absolutely no sense. So again, why is taking a small portion of Ukraine a viable solution for your stated justifications for the war?

---

Because, as I've always said, the Nazi problem is just one facet of the larger threat from NATO. Russia has secured a buffer against that threat and ensured that no Western army will penetrate it.

---

LOL. So the stated justification is just one of the problems, and now that Putin has a little more real estate, the perceived threat from NATO is remediated.

Sure, Sam. You're a hoot.

"Just War." LOL.

---

You've always been the one focused on Nazis as the sole issue for some reason. That's not Russia's position and never has been.

---

The only reason I am focused on it is because that was the reason you cited as justification for the invasion in our Just War discussion. It also just so happens to be Putin's justification.

Of course I know there are real reasons for the invasion. Putin of course wants to grab some more land, and install a regime that is more friendly to Russia.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

The propaganda op of associating Ukranian nationalism with Nazism worked wonders on people like Sam. They used it to justify starting the war in Donbas and they've used it in their latest invasion. They cast the same "ethnic genocide" anccusation upon Georgia prior to them invading. It's their standard build up rhetoric.

U. S. coup
Nazis
Ethnic violence or genocide
NATO

Rinse, repeat.

---

Indeed, it was same excuse Russia proffered for the Georgian invasion.

What's amazing to me is all of the Republicans who bought it. My party is now stocked full of Russian shills. Never thought I would have seen the day.

Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

The propaganda op of associating Ukranian nationalism with Nazism worked wonders on people like Sam….

---

DC ruling class uses propaganda constantly of associating American nationalism with Nazis and it has worked well here at home….so why not?

In America even traditional architecture is fascism…full on America 1st nationalism is Nazism.

---

I'll take the war of words over an actual war over it. While both are insanity, the body count is much higher in the latter. Therefore, there is no comparison.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

The propaganda op of associating Ukranian nationalism with Nazism worked wonders on people like Sam.

---

Says the guy who incessantly conflates the two.

---

That's your boy Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

The propaganda op of associating Ukranian nationalism with Nazism worked wonders on people like Sam….

---

DC ruling class uses propaganda constantly of associating American nationalism with Nazis and it has worked well here at home….so why not?

In America even traditional architecture is fascism…full on America 1st nationalism is Nazism.

---

I'll take the war of words over an actual war over it. While both are insanity, the body count is much higher in the latter. Therefore, there is no comparison.

---

Well there of course is a comparison to be made…both DC and Moscow view nationalism as the threat to their rule.

At least Russia views another country's nationalism as the problem….while the USA ruling class hates its own people (and is actively importing in a new one)

But you are correct…Moscow is killing the Ukrainian nationalists right now while DC just spies on and sometimes puts in jail American nationalists.

I guess Moscow wins the "who is ****ter" award again

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

The propaganda op of associating Ukranian nationalism with Nazism worked wonders on people like Sam….

---

DC ruling class uses propaganda constantly of associating American nationalism with Nazis and it has worked well here at home….so why not?

In America even traditional architecture is fascism…full on America 1st nationalism is Nazism.

---

I'll take the war of words over an actual war over it. While both are insanity, the body count is much higher in the latter. Therefore, there is no comparison.

---

Well there of course is a comparison to be made…both DC and Moscow view nationalism as the threat to their rule.

At least Russia views another country's nationalism as the problem….while the USA ruling class hates its own people (and is actively importing in a new one)

But you are correct…Moscow is killing the Ukrainian nationalists right now while DC just spies on and sometimes puts in jail American nationalists.

I guess Moscow wins the "who is ****ter" award again

---

Both parties view the other party's nationalism as a threat. Yes there are different stripes. Fortunately here in the U.S. we can still fight against that at the ballot box, the public square, public media, and the courts.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

The propaganda op of associating Ukranian nationalism with Nazism worked wonders on people like Sam….

---

DC ruling class uses propaganda constantly of associating American nationalism with Nazis and it has worked well here at home….so why not?

In America even traditional architecture is fascism…full on America 1st nationalism is Nazism.

---

I'll take the war of words over an actual war over it. While both are insanity, the body count is much higher in the latter. Therefore, there is no comparison.

---

Well there of course is a comparison to be made…both DC and Moscow view nationalism as the threat to their rule.

At least Russia views another country's nationalism as the problem….while the USA ruling class hates its own people (and is actively importing in a new one)

But you are correct…Moscow is killing the Ukrainian nationalists right now while DC just spies on and sometimes puts in jail American nationalists.

I guess Moscow wins the "who is ****ter" award again

---

Both parties view the other party's nationalism as a threat. Yes there are different stripes. Fortunately here in the U.S. we can still fight against that at the ballot box, the public square, public media, and the courts.

---

We might need to make another thread to discuss the fact that the government and courts right now are trying to put the opposition candidate in prison and strip him of his assets.

That the government is breaking its own laws to import in a new voting populace.

That the media, government, and security services work so closely together that we can hardly say they are separate at all.

That regular citizens are deplatformed, banned, and even spied on for their political and cultural views…

That an artificial two party system rewards the powerful and limits the choices of the masses of citizens to meaningfully affect political change.

DC is determined to copy Moscow it would seem…

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

I don't think you're reviewing the evidence, or if you are, you interpreting it through your own biased lens. There is ample evidence Russia has engaged in human rights abuses and is targeting infrastructure, including Ukrainian power grids.

I see no evidence of a stated or implied policy of wanting Russia broken up. I do see efforts to counter Russian bad acts in the world - of which there are many. Between cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage, interference, and now invading sovereign countries, we have ample evidence of Russia aggression in the world today. Putin is a guy who takes advantage of situations, and obviously, he sees a weak president in Biden he can take advantage of.

With respect to your last paragraph, what countries currently pose a threat to Russia?

Again, if Russia is justified in invading for the stated reason of denazification, merely taking small portions of Ukraine makes absolutely no sense. So again, why is taking a small portion of Ukraine a viable solution for your stated justifications for the war?

---

Because, as I've always said, the Nazi problem is just one facet of the larger threat from NATO. Russia has secured a buffer against that threat and ensured that no Western army will penetrate it.

---

LOL. So the stated justification is just one of the problems, and now that Putin has a little more real estate, the perceived threat from NATO is remediated.

Sure, Sam. You're a hoot.

"Just War." LOL.

---

You've always been the one focused on Nazis as the sole issue for some reason. That's not Russia's position and never has been.

---

The only reason I am focused on it is because that was the reason you cited as justification for the invasion in our Just War discussion. It also just so happens to be Putin's justification.

---

Wrong. I specifically said it was a factor, not a justification on its own.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

The US warned multiple times Russia was going to invade. And multiple times Russia denied it.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

And I believe you to be one of the best contributors on this board . Totally respect what you have done as a father .

But from the Russian perspective, they had few options remaining.

Months of negotiations were fruitless as the United States was unwavering in its determination to recruit Ukraine into NATO.

Thereby clearing the way to place still more nuclear weapons directly at the Russian people . From distances so short there would be less then 15 minutes notice of a nuclear launch.

I believe the US would have done something similar if these roles were reversed involving Mexico.

And much of the world would criticize our 'immoral' actions.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

And I believe you to be one of the best contributors on this board . Totally respect what you have done as a father .

But from the Russian perspective, they had few options remaining.

Months of negotiations were fruitless as the United States was unwavering in its determination to recruit Ukraine into NATO.

Thereby clearing the way to place still more nuclear weapons directly at the Russian people . From distances so short there would be less then 15 minutes notice of a nuclear launch.

I believe the US would have done something similar if these roles were reversed involving Mexico.

And much of the world would criticize our 'immoral' actions.

---

Yeah that's a bunch of hogwash and nothing more than Russian propaganda. There was little chance Ukraine was going to join NATO, and an even more minuscule chance that it would ever have nuclear weapons. Russia had options other than invasion. Perhaps if it had tried acting fairly with Ukraine years ago and chosen diplomacy rather than aggression and bloodshed this entire situation could have been avoided. But Russia chose to betray its agreements and commitments to Ukraine years ago and behaved in a manner that had Ukraine looking to Europe for trade agreements and alliances. And that was a bridge too far for the tiny little dictator.

Whatever way you try to spin it your position on this will remain wrong and morally reprehensible. It saddens me because you're an otherwise good poster. You're not a Sam who will quickly betray his purported deeply held beliefs and conservatism when it depends on the actor.

The sooner our party stops buying Russian propaganda the better.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals LoLwho dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

A. Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence for centuries.
B.Untill recently the US has not attempted to pull Ukraine out of said Russian sphere of influence .
C.It is the US, not Russia who actively attempted to fundamentally alter the military, political and economic status of Ukraine away from Russia and into an anti Russian military alliance ......NATO.
D..Despite several warnings from Putin that Ukrainian membership was an unacceptable risk to Russian security , the Biden administration did not back off.
E..Finally Putin put 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border.
F. Despite these Russian troops , the Biden administration still did not back off.
G. Again declaring Ukrainian membership into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security......Putin invaded .
H..If Russia attempted to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and repeatedly attempted to draw Mexico into a military alliance with Russia. An alliance with the strong possibility of Russian military bases and nuclear weapons being placed in Mexico . It is not remotely out of the question that the US would have invaded Mexico.

Each super power guards their own strategic interests.

With military invasions when necessary.

The US acts no differently

Sorry but that's not what happened at all. Biden could have certainly ratcheted down the rhetoric, but you need to read his comments on Ukrainian NATO membership at little closer. There was no immediate threat of Ukraine joining NATO.

Again you'll get no argument from me that Biden acted stupidly as always.

Kai, just a little perspective regarding how we got here, and how Russias own actions made Ukraine look West…

https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/why-putins-betrayal-of-ukraine-could-trigger-nuclear-proliferation/amp/

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

As with every other country, Russia is absolutely entitled to try to keep countries within its sphere of influence . . . just not by invading them and demanding they give up their sovereignty.

Russia does, in fact, try to push Mexico away from the U.S.

Russia already "has" Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, effectively Columbia and is working hard on others, including Brazil, where Lula is now a friend. Russia worked exceedingly hard in all of those efforts. It is now using Venezuela to threaten Guyana, which has one of the world's largest oil reserves managed mostly by U.S companies.

Do we try to counter Russia in these and other countries? Of course. Are we invading them? No.

You're also wrong on the facts. Putin and his cronies have publicly and privately talked about taking over Ukraine for decades. They also have stated numerous times for decades that they do not believe Ukraine is a real country or Ukrainians a real people.

And contrary to what you posted, the U.S. was one of the few who predicted Putin would invade. Our own closest allies disagreed with us.

---

Yup. Russia has for years attempted to turn Central America, South America and the Caribbean against us, and has been quite successful.

He and the other pro-Russia conservatives are wrong on all counts.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

I don't think you're reviewing the evidence, or if you are, you interpreting it through your own biased lens. There is ample evidence Russia has engaged in human rights abuses and is targeting infrastructure, including Ukrainian power grids.

I see no evidence of a stated or implied policy of wanting Russia broken up. I do see efforts to counter Russian bad acts in the world - of which there are many. Between cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage, interference, and now invading sovereign countries, we have ample evidence of Russia aggression in the world today. Putin is a guy who takes advantage of situations, and obviously, he sees a weak president in Biden he can take advantage of.

With respect to your last paragraph, what countries currently pose a threat to Russia?

Again, if Russia is justified in invading for the stated reason of denazification, merely taking small portions of Ukraine makes absolutely no sense. So again, why is taking a small portion of Ukraine a viable solution for your stated justifications for the war?

---

Because, as I've always said, the Nazi problem is just one facet of the larger threat from NATO. Russia has secured a buffer against that threat and ensured that no Western army will penetrate it.

---

LOL. So the stated justification is just one of the problems, and now that Putin has a little more real estate, the perceived threat from NATO is remediated.

Sure, Sam. You're a hoot.

"Just War." LOL.

---

You've always been the one focused on Nazis as the sole issue for some reason. That's not Russia's position and never has been.

---

The only reason I am focused on it is because that was the reason you cited as justification for the invasion in our Just War discussion. It also just so happens to be Putin's justification.

---

Wrong. I specifically said it was a factor, not a justification on its own.

---

Whatever. You spent several posts - and posted several articles - that argued the Nazism was a justification. If you thought there were other reasons this war is just, you haven't offered them.

Next time try to do a better job of arguing your stupid point.

---

it is a justification. It is not the justification. As to the rest, you're wrong again. Go back and read the posts if you must.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

Yet again you fail to distinguish between justification of the war and conduct of the war.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

And I believe you to be one of the best contributors on this board . Totally respect what you have done as a father .

But from the Russian perspective, they had few options remaining.

Months of negotiations were fruitless as the United States was unwavering in its determination to recruit Ukraine into NATO.

Thereby clearing the way to place still more nuclear weapons directly at the Russian people . From distances so short there would be less then 15 minutes notice of a nuclear launch.

I believe the US would have done something similar if these roles were reversed involving Mexico.

And much of the world would criticize our 'immoral' actions.

---

Yeah that's a bunch of hogwash and nothing more than Russian propaganda. There was little chance Ukraine was going to join NATO, and an even more minuscule chance that it would ever have nuclear weapons. Russia had options other than invasion. Perhaps if it had tried acting fairly with Ukraine years ago and chosen diplomacy rather than aggression and bloodshed this entire situation could have been avoided. But Russia chose to betray its agreements and commitments to Ukraine years ago and behaved in a manner that had Ukraine looking to Europe for trade agreements and alliances. And that was a bridge too far for the tiny little dictator.

Whatever way you try to spin it your position on this will remain wrong and morally reprehensible. It saddens me because you're an otherwise good poster. You're not a Sam who will quickly betray his purported deeply held beliefs and conservatism when it depends on the actor.

The sooner our party stops buying Russian propaganda the better.

---

Pure propaganda. It's the West that has betrayed its commitments to Russia at every turn.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

And I believe you to be one of the best contributors on this board . Totally respect what you have done as a father .

But from the Russian perspective, they had few options remaining.

Months of negotiations were fruitless as the United States was unwavering in its determination to recruit Ukraine into NATO.

Thereby clearing the way to place still more nuclear weapons directly at the Russian people . From distances so short there would be less then 15 minutes notice of a nuclear launch.

I believe the US would have done something similar if these roles were reversed involving Mexico.

And much of the world would criticize our 'immoral' actions.

---

Yeah that's a bunch of hogwash and nothing more than Russian propaganda. There was little chance Ukraine was going to join NATO, and an even more minuscule chance that it would ever have nuclear weapons. Russia had options other than invasion. Perhaps if it had tried acting fairly with Ukraine years ago and chosen diplomacy rather than aggression and bloodshed this entire situation could have been avoided. But Russia chose to betray its agreements and commitments to Ukraine years ago and behaved in a manner that had Ukraine looking to Europe for trade agreements and alliances. And that was a bridge too far for the tiny little dictator.

Whatever way you try to spin it your position on this will remain wrong and morally reprehensible. It saddens me because you're an otherwise good poster. You're not a Sam who will quickly betray his purported deeply held beliefs and conservatism when it depends on the actor.

The sooner our party stops buying Russian propaganda the better.

---

Pure propaganda. It's the West that has betrayed its commitments to Russia at every turn.

---

ROFL. No.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

I don't think you're reviewing the evidence, or if you are, you interpreting it through your own biased lens. There is ample evidence Russia has engaged in human rights abuses and is targeting infrastructure, including Ukrainian power grids.

I see no evidence of a stated or implied policy of wanting Russia broken up. I do see efforts to counter Russian bad acts in the world - of which there are many. Between cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage, interference, and now invading sovereign countries, we have ample evidence of Russia aggression in the world today. Putin is a guy who takes advantage of situations, and obviously, he sees a weak president in Biden he can take advantage of.

With respect to your last paragraph, what countries currently pose a threat to Russia?

Again, if Russia is justified in invading for the stated reason of denazification, merely taking small portions of Ukraine makes absolutely no sense. So again, why is taking a small portion of Ukraine a viable solution for your stated justifications for the war?

---

Because, as I've always said, the Nazi problem is just one facet of the larger threat from NATO. Russia has secured a buffer against that threat and ensured that no Western army will penetrate it.

---

LOL. So the stated justification is just one of the problems, and now that Putin has a little more real estate, the perceived threat from NATO is remediated.

Sure, Sam. You're a hoot.

"Just War." LOL.

---

You've always been the one focused on Nazis as the sole issue for some reason. That's not Russia's position and never has been.

---

The only reason I am focused on it is because that was the reason you cited as justification for the invasion in our Just War discussion. It also just so happens to be Putin's justification.

---

Wrong. I specifically said it was a factor, not a justification on its own.

---

Whatever. You spent several posts - and posted several articles - that argued the Nazism was a justification. If you thought there were other reasons this war is just, you haven't offered them.

Next time try to do a better job of arguing your stupid point.

---

it is a justification. It is not the justification. As to the rest, you're wrong again. Go back and read the posts if you must.

---

Not interested in regurgitating your silly points. As with most things you are on the wrong side of this. This is just another in a long line of instances in which you are willing to betray your stated morality depending on the actor.

In short, this is yet another one of your morally bankrupt positions.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

And I believe you to be one of the best contributors on this board . Totally respect what you have done as a father .

But from the Russian perspective, they had few options remaining.

Months of negotiations were fruitless as the United States was unwavering in its determination to recruit Ukraine into NATO.

Thereby clearing the way to place still more nuclear weapons directly at the Russian people . From distances so short there would be less then 15 minutes notice of a nuclear launch.

I believe the US would have done something similar if these roles were reversed involving Mexico.

And much of the world would criticize our 'immoral' actions.

---

Yeah that's a bunch of hogwash and nothing more than Russian propaganda. There was little chance Ukraine was going to join NATO, and an even more minuscule chance that it would ever have nuclear weapons. Russia had options other than invasion. Perhaps if it had tried acting fairly with Ukraine years ago and chosen diplomacy rather than aggression and bloodshed this entire situation could have been avoided. But Russia chose to betray its agreements and commitments to Ukraine years ago and behaved in a manner that had Ukraine looking to Europe for trade agreements and alliances. And that was a bridge too far for the tiny little dictator.

Whatever way you try to spin it your position on this will remain wrong and morally reprehensible. It saddens me because you're an otherwise good poster. You're not a Sam who will quickly betray his purported deeply held beliefs and conservatism when it depends on the actor.

The sooner our party stops buying Russian propaganda the better.

---

Pure propaganda. It's the West that has betrayed its commitments to Russia at every turn.

---

Of course, it's always the US that is the bad guy in your book. You always seem to side with the Mullahs, authoritarians and dictators, which says all one needs to know about you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

Yet again you fail to distinguish between justification of the war and conduct of the war.

---

Wrong again counselor.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

And I believe you to be one of the best contributors on this board . Totally respect what you have done as a father .

But from the Russian perspective, they had few options remaining.

Months of negotiations were fruitless as the United States was unwavering in its determination to recruit Ukraine into NATO.

Thereby clearing the way to place still more nuclear weapons directly at the Russian people . From distances so short there would be less then 15 minutes notice of a nuclear launch.

I believe the US would have done something similar if these roles were reversed involving Mexico.

And much of the world would criticize our 'immoral' actions.

---

Yeah that's a bunch of hogwash and nothing more than Russian propaganda. There was little chance Ukraine was going to join NATO, and an even more minuscule chance that it would ever have nuclear weapons. Russia had options other than invasion. Perhaps if it had tried acting fairly with Ukraine years ago and chosen diplomacy rather than aggression and bloodshed this entire situation could have been avoided. But Russia chose to betray its agreements and commitments to Ukraine years ago and behaved in a manner that had Ukraine looking to Europe for trade agreements and alliances. And that was a bridge too far for the tiny little dictator.

Whatever way you try to spin it your position on this will remain wrong and morally reprehensible. It saddens me because you're an otherwise good poster. You're not a Sam who will quickly betray his purported deeply held beliefs and conservatism when it depends on the actor.

The sooner our party stops buying Russian propaganda the better.

---

Pure propaganda. It's the West that has betrayed its commitments to Russia at every turn.

---

The US certainly owns its share of the blame for this war and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

But to say the West had betrayed its commitments to Russia 'at every turn' is a gross exaggeration.

Meanwhile, yesterday Putin launched massive air strikes on Ukraine - some of which flew through Polish airspace - on Ukrainian civilian centers in his "just" war to root out Nazism.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/24/poland-activates-air-force-as-western-ukraine-and-kyiv-come-under-massive-russian-attack

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

And I believe you to be one of the best contributors on this board . Totally respect what you have done as a father .

But from the Russian perspective, they had few options remaining.

Months of negotiations were fruitless as the United States was unwavering in its determination to recruit Ukraine into NATO.

Thereby clearing the way to place still more nuclear weapons directly at the Russian people . From distances so short there would be less then 15 minutes notice of a nuclear launch.

I believe the US would have done something similar if these roles were reversed involving Mexico.

And much of the world would criticize our 'immoral' actions.

---

Yeah that's a bunch of hogwash and nothing more than Russian propaganda. There was little chance Ukraine was going to join NATO, and an even more minuscule chance that it would ever have nuclear weapons. Russia had options other than invasion. Perhaps if it had tried acting fairly with Ukraine years ago and chosen diplomacy rather than aggression and bloodshed this entire situation could have been avoided. But Russia chose to betray its agreements and commitments to Ukraine years ago and behaved in a manner that had Ukraine looking to Europe for trade agreements and alliances. And that was a bridge too far for the tiny little dictator.

Whatever way you try to spin it your position on this will remain wrong and morally reprehensible. It saddens me because you're an otherwise good poster. You're not a Sam who will quickly betray his purported deeply held beliefs and conservatism when it depends on the actor.

The sooner our party stops buying Russian propaganda the better.

---

Pure propaganda. It's the West that has betrayed its commitments to Russia at every turn.

---

The US certainly owns its share of the blame for this war and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

But to say the West had betrayed its commitments to Russia 'at every turn' is a gross exaggeration.

---

NATO expansion, INF, ABM, Open Skies, Maidan, Minsk, proxy war…the list is long.

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

---

Again, I am still not sure what we disagree on. Please permit me to obtain some clarification by asking a few questions.

If I understand your correctly, you believe the US committed some horrible and unspeakable acts, and as the victors, we weren't held accountable because we were the victors. Do I understand you correctly? If so, ok.

Now, for me, here is the disconnect: What in the world does that have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because the US has in the past - in your opinion - committed horrible and unspeakable acts in its foreign policy, does that make the Russian invasion ok? Does it justify it?

Again, I am still trying to understand the gist of your argument.

---

From the Russian perspective

1. It was the US aggressively altering the geopolitical status quo attempting to pull Ukraine out of the historical Russian sphere of influence.
2. Russia gave repeated warnings such a change in the status quo was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. The Biden administration ignored the warnings.
3. Finally the Russians placed 200,000 troops along the Ukrainian border . An unmistakable final warning that altering the existing geopolitical status quo of Ukraine with admission into NATO was an unacceptable risk to Russian security. Incredibly the Biden administration still ignored the warnings. Clearly thought Putin was bluffing.
4. Russia invaded.



If the roles were reversed and it was Russia aggressively attempting to pull Mexico out of the US sphere of influence and enter into a military alliance ( with the obvious implications of the placement of nuclear weapons in Mexico )


It is entirely possible the US would have conducted a similar preemptive military attack into Mexico.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' when the strategic security of a super power is at risk .

In this case both Biden and Putin miscalculated badly.

---

There is always right or wrong to be apportioned in any military action. Often times, blame is to be shared, as in this case. We don't disagree that Biden and the bellicose talk about NATO and Russia contributed to the Russian invasion. There is no question he could have done things to ratchet down the rhetoric.

But ultimately, the aggressor here, the party that chose death and bloodshed, was Russia. The party that chose indiscriminate strikes and human rights atrocities was Russia. The party led by a despot who is a bad actor throughout the world today is Russia. And that is the reason the free and democratic world is a threat to Russia. Freedom is always a threat to tyranny, and that's the path Russia chose.

When you start excusing or trying to justify the bloodshed of tyrants, you might consider you've completely lost your moral compass. While Biden bears responsibility for what happened, there is nothing right or moral in what Putin has done. Nothing. Does that mean we need to purposely antagonize or provoke them? Of course not. But trying to defend Putin's choice of death and destruction is inexcusable. And that is where you err.

---

With respect,

Throughout world history ( including US strategic interests ) this moral compass you mention is an illusion.

Super powers and empires have always acted out in their economic, political and strategic best interests and then justified it afterwards.

Is Russian ' morally ' correct to invade Ukraine ?
Obviously it depends who you ask .

Was the United States 'morally' correct to invade Iraq ?
Again it depends who you ask.

Personally I am equally angry at both Biden and Putin. They both miscalculated, a horrendous war ensued, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russians have been sacrificed.

However it was the UNITED STATES that attempted to alternate the existing status quo in the region. It was the UNITED STATES that ignored the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian border . Most likely Biden simply was simply too far into his dementia to comprehend the finality of the situation. Or possibly welcomed a proxy war in which to cover his family's money laundering activities.

Regardless the rich elites in both the US and Russia sit safely back in their mansions while the poor and middle class elements of Ukrainian and Russian society are forced to kill each other.

That is what is morally repugnant to me.

As always it is the rich elites who start wars, but the poor and middle class who get mutilated and die in them .

---

Sorry but I don't buy your moral relativism. You're a good poster who I generally agree with, but you've lost your way and are dead wrong on this one. Your position that a tyrant is justified in killing innocents is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether he has been antagonized by Biden's decisions.

There is no excusing russias actions here.

---

And I believe you to be one of the best contributors on this board . Totally respect what you have done as a father .

But from the Russian perspective, they had few options remaining.

Months of negotiations were fruitless as the United States was unwavering in its determination to recruit Ukraine into NATO.

Thereby clearing the way to place still more nuclear weapons directly at the Russian people . From distances so short there would be less then 15 minutes notice of a nuclear launch.

I believe the US would have done something similar if these roles were reversed involving Mexico.

And much of the world would criticize our 'immoral' actions.

---

Yeah that's a bunch of hogwash and nothing more than Russian propaganda. There was little chance Ukraine was going to join NATO, and an even more minuscule chance that it would ever have nuclear weapons. Russia had options other than invasion. Perhaps if it had tried acting fairly with Ukraine years ago and chosen diplomacy rather than aggression and bloodshed this entire situation could have been avoided. But Russia chose to betray its agreements and commitments to Ukraine years ago and behaved in a manner that had Ukraine looking to Europe for trade agreements and alliances. And that was a bridge too far for the tiny little dictator.

Whatever way you try to spin it your position on this will remain wrong and morally reprehensible. It saddens me because you're an otherwise good poster. You're not a Sam who will quickly betray his purported deeply held beliefs and conservatism when it depends on the actor.

The sooner our party stops buying Russian propaganda the better.

---

Pure propaganda. It's the West that has betrayed its commitments to Russia at every turn.

---

The US certainly owns its share of the blame for this war and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

But to say the West had betrayed its commitments to Russia 'at every turn' is a gross exaggeration.

---

NATO expansion, INF, ABM, Open Skies, Maidan, Minsk, proxy war…the list is long.

---

Admittedly I am not familiar will all the ramifications of these programs , nor what prompted them .

However I do know Putin isn't blameless for the current situation. As he has repeatedly declared his dismay of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and his hope of restoring its former power .