I feel sorry for you too. It must be sad to be you. It's already depressing to have you around.

Of course war is a crime. But who started this war? Your honey bunny Putin did.

Nice example of the Putinistas' political philosophy: cynicism and nihilism.

I don't think it's even possible to have a modern day war, without committing war crimes. It comes with the territory. — Manuel

So Hitler and Stalin were in the right, and the Red Cross are fools. Good to know.

As we are not citizens of Russia, we do not have this option - and also they get arrested if they do protest. — Manuel

We do have the option of protesting against the Russian government. And we can do it on behalf of all decent Russians.

. I can't be responsible for the fact that you're too stupid to understand the conversation. — Isaac

Show me one single post of yours discussing the possible consequences of this war on Ukraine.

Here is the background, and it's clearly about dictatorship vs democracy:

Are you denying that Russia is presently a ruthless dictatorship, and/or that Ukraine is a democracy? If not, what are you saying?
— Olivier5

I am denying that there is a vast moral difference between them on the grounds that I do not see a vast moral difference between governments in general. — unenlightened

Do you think of the morality of a country in these terms or in some other way? — unenlightened

I would add a number of unalienable rights to the list, such as the right of thinking and saying more or less what you want to, the right to private property, protection against arbitrary violence and so forth.

Anyone with a post-adolescent grasp of politics is discussing the actual outcomes and their impact on Ukraine (and the wider world). — Isaac

I don't know whom you are talking about. Who are all these guys, and where are they discussing the impact on Ukraine, or the rest of the world?

I have lived and worked in many places, in Africa and Asia, including countries where the state jails or kills folks for their ideas, with total impunity. It takes some getting used to. And people in these countries do not speak so lightly about democracy being so to speak "just the same thing as dictatorship but with voting booths". They often hope it makes a difference.

I am denying that there is a vast moral difference between them on the grounds that I do not see a vast moral difference between governments in general. — unenlightened

To what extent is this judgement based on your own personal experience with different modes or types of governments? Because this strikes me as something a person would say from the safe comfort of a First World armchair.

You are saying it, but do not seem to be prepared to back it up or consider comparisons made by others. — unenlightened

I am prepared to back it up, if challenged. As for comparisons, those are rarely about Ukraine. They are usually about how equally destructive the US has been. But two wrongs don't make a right.

And it is odd considering that the ruthless militaristic dictatorship and the attacked democracy in this case were, within my lifetime at least, one and the same nation. How is it that all the saints of the USSR lived in the West and all the sinners in the East? — unenlightened

That is a rather slanted question. I am not trying to essentialise this conflict. There are I suppose historical and geographical reasons why the various republics who emerged from the breakdown of the USSR had diverging political evolutions. Are you denying that Russia is presently a ruthless dictatorship, and/or that Ukraine is a democracy? If not, what are you saying?

it appears to some of us that the moral high ground is unoccupied by any government. — unenlightened

I am not saying that democracies are always right or that they occupy any moral high ground by virtue of being democracies. Some of them are also dysfunctional. They don't actually function as democracies, only formally so.

I am saying though, that there is no moral equivalence between 1) a ruthless militaristic dictatorship and 2) the democracy attacked by 1. That Russia is in the wrong here, and that condemning war crimes doesn't imply any russophobia whatsoever on my side, contrary to what Apo was implying, but common decency instead.

I am not interested in your war crime apologies. If philosophy has led you there, in this moral cloaca where you cannot even distinguish between an aggressive dictatorship and a defending democracy, then my advice is: burn all your philosophy books, because they made a monster out of you.

Personally, the general feeling of disgust I have for the Russian side has to see with war crimes being committed, not russophobia.

Stricter gun control makes sense because we have a lot to gain by enforcing minor inconveniences. People who oppose gun control will always point out that it doesn't solve the root problem; but it doesn't have to address the entire root issue. For example, we could enact stricter gun control and revamp the mental health system at the same time. Overall gun deaths would be reduced by both. — Bird-Up

I appreciate the ideas but think it's just too late for the US to regulate gun purchase. There are too many weapons already out there in the hands of people. There are more guns in the US than people. Some people own dozens of guns. Controlling guns in the US is like trying to reduce the amount of sand in the Sahara.

The only way out would be to outlaw, not just all trade of new weapons, but also weapon possession. Ban all these weapons, collect them by force and burn them... I cannot imagine that happening. There's no way out, except a revolution.

Of course I would be in favour of a diplomatic solution to the blockade, — Isaac

Does that mean you support Mario Draghi's efforts?

To test your interest in a specific, actual diplomatic effort as opposed to theoretical gesticulations in favor of diplomacy in general.

Would you find it objectionable if Draghi (and/or others) would find a diplomatic way to get this wheat out of Odessa?

Translation: the world can die, as long as Putin is safe.

I don't see why it matters. America and Europe have enough food to feed the world several times over. — Isaac

In your dreams.

The point would obviously be to lower food prices and reduce suffering the world over. Your casual disregard of the poor is noted. As long as Putin is safe, you're happy.

It's precisely because I care for the truth that I am not interested in your numbered propaganda items.

Whether (a) they're actually saying that and (b) they're lies, remains to be seen. — Apollodorus

I confirm I couldn't care less, then.

Do you reckon it may be possible to break the blockade?

So why would we be bothered with your long numbered lists of lies they could say?

They could say any number of lies.

There was another similar call to break the blockade and get the grain out, posted by recently. It made a good case for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/23/we-must-stop-letting-russia-define-the-terms-of-the-ukraine-crisis


This caught my attention:


US-supplied howitzers to Ukraine lack computers
(KYIV, Ukraine) — Dozens of artillery systems supplied by the United States to Ukraine were not fitted with advanced computer systems, which improve the efficiency and accuracy of the weapons, ABC News has learned.

The M777 155mm howitzers are now being used by the Ukrainian military in its war with Russia.

The Pentagon did not deny that the artillery pieces were supplied without the computers but said it had received “positive feedback” from the Ukrainians about the “precise and highly effective” weapons.

That positive sentiment was echoed by a Ukrainian politician, who spoke to ABC News on condition of anonymity. However, the politician also expressed frustration that the artillery pieces had not been the fitted with the digital computer systems. [...]

Howitzers without a computer system can still be fired accurately, using traditional methods to calculate the angle needed to hit a target. Modern computer systems, however, rule-out the possibility of human error.

Why the artillery pieces supplied to Ukraine did not have the digital targeting technology installed is unclear. The Pentagon said it would not discuss individual components “for operational security reasons.” [...]

A security expert, retired Colonel Steve Ganyard, said the United States had not sent the devices for fear that it might fall into the hands of the Russians. “In this case, they could not share the best of the United States,” he said.

Super Mario keeps trying...

2 mins ago (17:53 GMT)

Italy aims to free grain exports blocked in Black Sea ports, Prime Minister Mario Draghi has told reporters following a phone call he held with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The first initiative one could begin to explore is to see whether a cooperation between Russia and Ukraine to unblock Black Sea ports could be built,” Draghi said.

Draghi said he would soon talk to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on this issue.

https://tintin.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Captain_Haddock%27s_Curses

An exception which literally confirms the rule set out in the OP:



Writing for children, Hergé could not use sexual words. He had to invent a whole set of new insults to be able to have a character prone to swearing.

Another side is that Russians are defending what they believe to be their country. — Apollodorus

If they believed so, they wouldn't bomb civilians so much.

They just believe that they are entitled to bomb anyone, including their own people.

IMO it seems unphilosophical to take a one-sided view of the conflict. — Apollodorus

In my opinion, it is unprincipled not to do so.

Not sure that Draghi's initiative is going anywhere, but at least he's trying. What do the pretend peace lovers here think of it?



Russia has not seen Italian peace plan for Ukraine
Reuters

May 24 (Reuters) - Russia has not yet seen an Italian peace plan for Ukraine, but hopes to receive it through diplomatic channels, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday.

Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio gave the broad outlines of the plan last week and said that he had discussed it with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres during a visit to New York.

"We haven't seen it yet, we hope it will be delivered to us through diplomatic channels and we will familiarise ourselves with it," Peskov said.

The plan would involve international groups such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe which would act as facilitators to organise localised ceasefires initially, Di Maio told a news conference in Italy last Friday. [...]

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, was dismissive of the plan and other such initiatives by the West. [...]

Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi has repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Italy's broad ruling coalition is divided over the issue of whether to supply more arms to Ukraine.

Myself, Boethius, benkei, streetlight among others have advocated diplomacy. You've demonised all. Accusations of working for the FSB, supporting terrorism, condoning rape etc. — Isaac

I've not criticized any of you BECAUSE you advocated diplomacy, to the extent that you have actually done so, which is unclear.

None of you have advocated a specific diplomatic approach or solution.

Vague gesticulations towards it, yes, but I haven't seen anything serious and precise. And I suspect that these gesticulations -- including your whining here -- are part of an effort to make others look bad. It's a 'demonising tool' and nothing more

IFF you start to propose specific approaches and ideas for a peace process, I'm a taker. But if all you want is to posture as the most morally woke TPFer, don't expect me to be impressed.

What we do here is called a conversation, not a war. — Olivier5

Thinking of it, the Putinistas may be under the impression that their esteemed contributions here are part of the war, part of a battle for public opinion.

This battle did take place, but it's over now. It's been won by Ukraine and there's nothing the Putinistas can do about it, except cry and bitch.

Hence the aggressive tone of @Isaac, hard to understand but logical in his position: he's like one of these Japanese soldiers stranded alone on some Pacific island, still fighting a long lost war years after 1945.

Who said anything about disparaging diplomatic efforts? — Isaac

You did.

demonising those who advocate diplomacy. — Isaac

That was disingenous. Nobody here has ever demonised any diplomacy advocate. You are inventing your own debate, obsessed as you are with pointing fingers at other posters.

Calm down already. What we do here is called a conversation, not a war.

What's unethical is to spread lies. So stop it.

Where have I disparaged diplomatic efforts, ever?

You are commenting on the ethics of war, now? Let me guess: you think war is bad.

What else is new?

In any case, it should be obvious that the longer the war drags on with US assistance, the more people will die on both sides. — Apollodorus

That's what wars do, indeed. What else is new?

Of course we've been through this before. You already got your little games debunked and your truculent questions answered. Your waste of bandwidth is noted.

I support your right to vote — Isaac

Thank you so much. Do you additionally support the right of Ukrainians to vote? If yes, you will agree with me and many others that the freely elected and hence legitimate government of Ukraine has the right and the duty to defend the lives and well being of the country's population, and to decide which peace they want, based not only on a consideration of immediate outcomes, tomorrow or next month, but also on whether or not a peace deal could be trusted to work in the long term.

Do take the long term into consideration. From a long term perspective, the idea of "teaching R a lesson" is NOT to harm them for the sake of it. It's about deterrence. The idea is to lower the chances of a future war of aggression from Russia, and therefore intended to reduce future damage inflicted by future wars to the Ukrainian people.

This, the Ukrainian leadership understands very well. And I think it's a legitimate war goal.

I did. I said that I support the right of the Ukrainian leadership to decide their own peace terms when and how they see fit.

there are two options - one is to end hostilities at the earliest opportunity from which diplomacy might take over, the other is end hostilities at the last possible opportunity, inflicting the maximum damage to the antagonist. Concerning yourself (and your rhetoric) with the damage inflicted supports the second. Concerning ourselves with the costs of war supports the first.

Our entire disagreement here is about the morality of supporting either approach. — Isaac

Is it? I personally see no objection to Ukraine signing any peace treaty they want, at any point. I've said so already so I am a bit surprised by your apparent confusion.