Accept that we've emboldened him — Isaac

This is still part of the narrative "Putin is evil/a monster/bully/etc. and everything he says and does must be interpreted in line with this fact".

This is where it all goes wrong. It's acting in bad faith. Acting in bad faith goes wrong as long as the other party still has some strength to resist it. The only times when acting in bad faith seems to work out fine is when the other party is too weak to offer much resistance.

The actual problem at hand is operating on the idea that acting in bad faith is good, or at least not problematic.

So, it's about keeping doors open. Even if Putin wants them tightly shut with no light shining in. — Amity

There you go: The West's supremacism. It radiates through every crack.

Westerners insist in their supremacism and entitlement, while there are still people in the world who refuse to submit to it. And yet they are the bad guys!

Self-criticism. This is my way. If a person practices self-criticism, that person cannot be so destructive, because that person will continuously ask to herself: “What am I doing? Is it good? Is it intelligent? Will it help progress?”. If Hitler had a habit of self-criticism, he would have thought, every second of his life: “What am I doing?”.
— Angelo Cannata

For people with delusions or paranoia - mad or bad, it is not possible to reason like this.
They have no reason to. — Amity

What makes you think Hitler wasn't being critical of himself? What evidence do you have, either from existing recordings of him, or what appear to be his writings (published or private)?

What makes you think that self-criticism should result in exactly one kind of answers? Namely, those pleasing to the current mainstream politically correct agenda?

This reminds me of a Christian preacher who said, "If you're honest, you will realize that Jesus is your Lord and Savior. And if you don't realize that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, then you're simply not being honest." He imposed his standards of honesty onto others.

You're doing the same kind of thing: Imposing what the result of self-criticism should be, and that if a person seems to lack that result, it can only be that they aren't self-critical.


This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler. "Gut feeling" is not an argument.

How do we solve a problem like Putin?

A person isn't a problem to solve.

As for the situation at hand, the solution is simple, but people generally refuse to implement it: Act in good faith, with common decency, and treat people like people.

But most people will rather have their right hand cut off and their eyes plucked out than act in good faith, with common decency, and treat people like people.

They generally refuse to do so in peace time, what to speak of doing so in times of war.


I'm not going to mention names, but some of the people who wrote those essays you're refering to generally sound like lumpenproletariat with advanced degrees.

One person's "cognitive rigidity" is another person's "steadfastness" and "self-confidence".
Who gets to define the terms? Humanist liberals with their particular agenda?
— baker

History is full of it. — Benkei

Full of what? Answers to "Who gets to define the terms?" ?

Why should that be a problem? You exclude others.
— baker

Intolerance of intolerance isn't exclusion but nice try.

*sigh*

No, a ius ad bellum argument. All wars of conquest were unjust, even then by our own standards. But again, history, which you've must have missed in class.

This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler. There should be more to one's moral arguments than "gut feeling".

You're reflecting an uncritical acceptance of liberalist pop-psychology.
— baker

I'm reflecting the latest research on the matter and you offer nothing substantive in return.

Only some of the latest research. There is other research that says that people are naturally resilient and that much of what psychology at large has been doing is actually useless or even counterproductive.

Why would one have to tell another person anything when they are afraid?
— baker

Indeed why?

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

Shutting up would already be an improvement but unfortunately society is filled with people telling people what they are supposed to feel, supposed to look like and supposed to do. Usually starting with your parents.

Can't you see that your "latest research on the matter" is doing the same thing -- telling people what to think, feel, speak, and do -- except that it does so under the guise of "science" and "latest research".

Seriously? “She hit me first” - that’s the argument? — Possibility

*sigh*

It's not an argument, it's an anecdotal estimate by a self-defense professional.
Actual studies of these phenomena are relatively few, because the issue is so loaded, so anecdotal evidence is often all we have. Generally, victimology brings up many concepts and study findings that are unpalatable to many people.

What are you, five?

*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*

If men would rather not be hit by people, then they should stop pretending it doesn’t hurt. If it hurt, then for fuck’s sake TELL her that it hurt. Use your words. This is not a test of bravado.

If someone hits a person who is physically stronger, the implication is NOT the same as a physically stronger person hitting them. This is true regardless of gender.

A fight is a fight. In any fight, it is assumed that the one who hits first is willing to fight. Regardless of perceived or real differences in physical prowess and fighting skill.

It's misleading to frame the matter as "man vs. woman". It's fighter vs. fighter, or fighter vs. non-fighter.

If she’s emotionally destroying him with her fists, then he needs to tell her that, rather than pretend there’s no emotional attachment to destroy.

Superficial and stereotyped relationships come at a price.

That's an odd belief, that one cannot love a mad person. — Olivier5

It's incoherent to love that which one hates or despises or otherwise considers wrong or substandard.

I don't think that this crisis will be contained to Ukraine, but I'm an optimist that it will be contained from becoming WW3. — ssu

How?

As an analogy, what if this was the mindset of every person born into actual slavery? How do you think slavery was abolished? Not just by griping. It was the efforts of people focused on the possibility of a complete cessation of slavery, despite the reality of their experience. And they developed an understanding of their oppressors, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with this so-called forced agenda, until it no longer appeared to be ‘forced’, but was a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion. — Possibility

You do realize that the implicit motivation for ending slavery wasn't some kind of enlightened "But blacks are people too!", but the capitalist motivation to produce an easily indentifiable category of workers that could be exploited even more easily than the white trash. Remember, owning slaves is rather expensive: the owner has to provide for them housing, food, vocational training, various other practical matters. By "freeing" the slaves, all those costs are now on their own shoulders.

Fair enough, and I think Schopenhauer would have a similar view. One point I am trying to make, that you criticized (it seemed) by saying I was overemphasizing, is that we are ALREADY put in a position that we will have those two types of craving AT ALL. This is my ethical stance against procreation, but also informs my overall pessimism. The fact that we are already PUT in a stance to HAVE to move forward with burdens, overcoming burdens, overcoming the burden of all burdens (chanda, let's say), — schopenhauer1

I think that at the core of your predicament is that you're too passive, you wait for too long, wait for others to tell you things. This has many consequences, one of them being a general sense of being-thrown-in-at-the-deep-end.
There are aspects to your pessimism that are the product of inaction. Perhaps also products of laziness, indolence, convenience.

Specifically in reference to Buddhism: Ideally, in a Buddhist context, a person doesn't wait to be preached to, to be taught. The normal way to go about learning the doctrine is to study it yourself, or not bother with it at all. If one leaves oneself to the mercy of others, they will teach what they think one needs, which, however, might not be be relevant to one's needs, interests, and concerns.

It's all part of a STANCE one HAS to take in the FIRST PLACE because one is ALREADY in the situation to begin with.

There is one stance that I do expect you to take, and that is "What you do matters".

And this, you may call "unduly pessimistic" but it is the reality, and a reality that cannot be contested, as even the very act of contesting proves the point!

So?

So I brought up the idea of gaslighting with Possibility. In a way, Buddhist (and other Eastern religions) are doing the same thing as what (it seems if I can understand her jargon) she is doing.

It's important to note, though, that ideally, you wouldn't hear anything about Buddhism (or most other "Eastern religions") unless you made the effort yourself.
Instead, what has happened is that some Westerners have spread "Eastern religions" in the West, using the model of religion as they devised it based on Christianity. Unlike Christianity, "Eastern religions" generally do not proselytize, they are closed circles intended only for those with sufficient personal interest and who are willing and able to make the required effort.

That is to say, it tries to make the suffering inwards (it is YOU who must change your view or right way of thinking to overcome suffering).

And not having heard anything about Buddhism, you wouldn't be griping about this.

1) First off, I don't think the metaphysics is true. I DON'T think that the world is SIMPLY a construction. Rather, I think that there are SOME necessities (i.e. situatedness) of reality that one CAN NEVER change. These processes are the reasons we have desires and wants in the the first place. They are basically originated from evolutionary means, and what it means to be an animal in a physical environment.. (hunger, boredom, language, working together to accomplish goals, and the self-awareness).. it's all part of a sort of necessity of what it means to be "born" at all. I think it is a long con game to pretend that, "No we are not born, we only THINK we are born".. I think Descartes pretty much took care of that kind of thinking. Buddhism INSISTS there is no THERE there but there is a THERE. If there wasn't you wouldn't need things like Chanda or Buddhism at all! It's a pseudo-problem, really.
But you can always gaslight and say, "No no, that is just what you would say because you are too deluded or you don't have the right understanding".

I think the cure for all this is to actually study Buddhist doctrine, or else, drop all talk of it.

2) Second, I notice that Buddhism is basically about the Middle Way.. This allows for things like having families, working tirelessly at your job, or whatever.

Again, I advise to take up a serious study of Buddhist doctrine, in order to clarify all issues, or drop the whole thing altogether. Such a populistic level of understanding is a waste of time.

Thus, my answer is griping. I know that sounds oddly pedestrian, but it is more than just complaining.. It is the communal realization of our predicament..

Clearly, it's not all that communal, given that not everyone shares it.

In part, I agree with pessmism -- in the sense that this world is an endless round of suffering. Where the pessimism of your variety and I part ways is the "communal consolation" aspect and the passivity. Both griping and passivity should be beneath one's dignity, simply as a matter of principle. This doesn't equate to advocating optimism etc. It's just about common decency.

That's like saying that the operation was successful, and who cares if the patient died!
— baker

The operation is a choice the ‘patient’ makes freely, with an understanding of the risks. A failed operation is an opportunity to improve on the next attempt. Or not. And I’m not saying ‘who cares’ at all. I’m just saying that those who consider it worth the risk have often taken more into consideration than you might be aware of yourself in judging them. — Possibility

I used the theme of the successful operation but with a dead patient to comment on your lack of concern for the people involved, and instead your prefrence for some "bigger picture".

Notice I didn’t say a significant or noticeable difference. Making an incremental difference is not about anyone acknowledging your existence but the ‘self’ you construct to engage with the world. But this is only what I choose from my experience. I see it as an example of creatively re-arranging this supposedly ‘forced agenda’ you two keep harping on about as some ‘big bad’ we’re supposed to try and ‘win’ against. But it’s not about winning, it’s about understanding how the agenda is constructed - and then changing it.

"You two". Blegh.
Schopenhauer1 and I do not have the same stance, and I'm not "griping" about the agenda.

This has nothing to do with ‘craving’, but selecting freely from options that include suicide, asceticism and griping. But you will continue to insist that I must be craving something, because you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand it any other way.

It is craving, it's textbook craving. You bring in Buddhist references, so I assume this is the language we can use here.

"Just like you, we also don't actually know whether God exists or not, but we'll burn you in his name anyway!"
— baker

Strawman

No, a reflection of your supreme self-confidence.

While you reduce whatever I (or some other posters) say in such a way that you can dismiss it.
Talk about ignorance and exclusion!
— baker

What have I dismissed?

Buddhism, for one, despite making references to it and using its terminology.


I'm not a Buddhist; I'm familiar with the doctrine, though. When I see someone making egregious claims to the effect of "Early Buddhism is wrong", this catches my attention and I want to see what said person has to say, how they hold up in discussion. Whether they can offer something that is superior to what the Buddha of the suttas taught.

What I’ve been trying to articulate (obviously unsuccessfully) is the possibility that we’re both approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure. I’m exploring the possibility that we could both be correct and incorrect to some extent, and using this interaction to improve the accuracy of my own position (and potentially yours, but you don’t seem willing to even consider that). — Possibility

I am quite certain that we are _not_ "approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure".

Anything that is less than the complete cessation of suffering is not relevant to my theme. You seem to be saying that the complete cessation of suffering is not possible. On this account, I'm interested in seeing what you have to offer, hence why I'm still discussing this.

Or else, it's a matter of being self-confident, which is a good thing.
— baker

Self-confidence is about problem ownership, admitting mistakes and being prepared to let go of beliefs when they turn out to be wrong. There's no self-confidence in dogma, only a failure to think. — Benkei

One person's "cognitive rigidity" is another person's "steadfastness" and "self-confidence".
Who gets to define the terms? Humanist liberals with their particular agenda?

There can be cooperation without the trappings of inside jokes, secret handshakes and cordoning of us and them.

The problem about brotherhood is that it excludes others.

Why should that be a problem? You exclude others.

Do provide three examples of such wars "to remove real evil".
— baker

Every war fought by indigenous people against European invaders plus Hitler.

Ah, the noble savages argument.

And the "healthy reaction" to any emotion is to be passive. "Look, there's a man setting my house on fire! I feel so afraid! I must have a healthy reaction to fear!"
— baker

How does this even relate to my post? A healthy reaction is acknowledgment of the existence of the emotion and for your surroundings to accept that existence.

You're reflecting an uncritical acceptance of liberalist pop-psychology.

So if someone if afraid, you don't tell them there's nothing to fear, because that's a dick move.

Why would one have to tell another person anything when they are afraid?

It also means no one wants to deal with them anymore, no one wants criminals around them. — Christoffer

Nobody ever wanted them to begin with. They have always been treated as third class people. To whatever extent they were accepted, it was all conditional. Russians (and Slavic people in general) have always been expected to earn the respect of the Westerners, while the Westerners feel entitled to getting respect from others without ever earning it.

This skewed dynamic is at the core of this whole conflict, and many others.

Seems absurd when expressed this bluntly, but it's really true: the most challenging philosophical task of the modern world may be what to do about our need, compulsion, desire to chew. — Enrique

Not chew in particular, but to ingest, to eat. The real philosophical problem is eating, feeding.

But isn't that all weakness? Not being able to change your mind because of what? Extreme beliefs to me seem to be about clinging to what you think you know. — Benkei

Or else, it's a matter of being self-confident, which is a good thing.

In brotherhood we just do what everybody does because it feels safe.

I doubt this generally holds true. Group psychology isn't just about mediating fear, it's also about achieving mental and practical outcomes that a single person could not.

A purely defensive war or a war to remove real evil, you know the level that makes you sick in your stomach and retch

Do provide three examples of such wars "to remove real evil".

But where to go from there? What does it help if we can reduce causes for war to this. We're not capable of teaching the world to have healthy reactions to emotions.

And the "healthy reaction" to any emotion is to be passive. "Look, there's a man setting my house on fire! I feel so afraid! I must have a healthy reaction to fear!"

What we're apparently not capable of is to treat eachother with common decency and generally refuse to act in good faith. It's this lack of common decency and the insistence in bad faith that progressively worsen the situation until it deteriorates into armed conflict.

Thank you, you are very kind. Honestly I failed her, but yes, in the end it was her choice.
— Olivier5

It pains me to read that you feel like you failed her. I don't want to try and change your mind, I just want you to know, that you do not have to carry this as a failure on your part. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Of course he failed her. She risked health and life so that she could keep the relationship with him at all, and it wasn't enough.

There is something peculiar in that line of reasoning though, because the solution is so obvious, release the taboos around sexuality. — Tobias

List three examples when the lowering of standards led to a better result.

Besides, nowadays, we have more taboos around sexuality than ever. We are under the dictate of discussing the matter, but are allowed to do so only superficially.

banged a girl — Hanover

And people who use such language should be regarded as arbiters of righteousness ........

By whom were you hit more often? By men or by women?
— baker

By men. Definitely men. — Possibility

Women. Absolutely by women.


I heard from a facilitator of women's self-defense classes that according to their internal study, in about 50% of the cases of violence of men against women, it was the woman who hit the man first (and things then escalated from there).

I still loved her but couldn't take the madness anymore. — Olivier5

One cannot simultaneously love someone and beileve they are mad. One of the two is not true.

every religion that rejects worship all deities entails atheism with respect to those unworshipped deities
— 180 Proof

A fallicious entailment. You think I worship any of them? No way. — EugeneW

An egotheist, then.

↪Gregory A Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?
a day ago
— baker

As a loser, a homeless person, someone sleeping in a car, yet with a message, can communicate with others wherever they are in the world I can't help but consider such an outcome so slanted in my favour can come about by mere chance. But, still don't let me stop you believing that a 12v powered tablet computer, a hotspot from my phone, like the Mount Rushmore memorial are simply Natural features of an uncaring universe. — Gregory A

You're working with a fallacious reduction of options. There aren't just "either believe in God, or believe in mere chance". It's also possible to not have any particular opinion on the matter. Or believe that Earth is controlled by beings from other galaxies. And whatever other cosmogonies people believe in.


I asked you
Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?

This is to point out that most people who have ever believed in God, have not done so as a result of careful consideration and choosing, but were simply born and raised into a monotheistic religion. They were taught to believe in God, they never chose to do so.

The people who _choose_ to believe in God are a minority.

Do you have any comment on this?

Ukraine? — schopenhauer1

I'm not that close to where it's happening. But the government of the country I live in decided it would be a good idea to get "more actively involved" in the war, so ...

IF reducing or eliminating suffering is genuinely what you want. — Possibility

Reducing suffering and eliminating suffering are two categorically different things.



I'll get back to this thread in the next few days, provided the country I live in will still exist.

You keep complaining about the low level of public discourse.
However this Ukr. situation ends, one thing looks certain: afterwards, in the West, this low level of public discourse will be cemented as the norm that everyone must comply with.

What a bizarre claim, mirroring the stance of the OP: "People are atheists because they want to."

Anyway, the question was specifically for the OP.

If love is a matter of goods, why would I have less of a right to them then you? — Tobias

Not only that, but also: You must have love, you must have sex. Sex is a status symbol, and also a symbol of psychological normalcy. It seems natural to resent everything that stands in one's way of obtaining status.

In a matriarchal society would women end up being the nasty ones on account of having power or would the world be kinder on account of women being in charge? — Cuthbert

It's not clear why it would be kinder then.

Generally, I find men are kinder toward women than other women. If women would be in charge, that would possibly be better for men, but worse for women.

Yes, suicide is often used to hurt others too. Sometimes, it is not just self-violence; rather it is meant to scar others permanently. And it does. The suicide of a loved one is not something one can forget. — Olivier5

You dumped her. She was not a "loved one" of yours.

I was a fan of Merkel, but not because she was a women. — Olivier5

A woman. Please.

But women objectify themselves and other women in this same way. Pick up pretty much any "women's" magazine, book, tv show, seminar, webinar, and there it is: "see yourself as a piece of meat to be fucked".

It's a bit of a stretch to say that women do this because they are the poor victims of patriarchy.
— baker

I would agree that women, being people, have the capacity to make decisions. Bikini models choose to be bikini models, etc. Alcoholics choose to be alcoholics (60% of the revenue in the alcohol industry comes from alcoholics), etc.

But I think that it would be too shallow of an analysis to entirely put the blame for objectification on the women who choose to objectify themselves. — _db

The idea often put forward is that men objectify women and that women are innocent victims. I point out that this isn't the case, given that women are complicit in the objectification of women.
An abusive situation is complex and doesn't just emerge overnight. The objectification of women isn't solely the fault of men, nor of women, but both.

The objectification is marketed towards men - it is the male gaze that these women are attempting to satisfy. And by doing so there is the implicit message: that if you don't look like this, you aren't good enough.

This is a while back by now -- A man once told me that if I don't look like Claudia Schiffer (who was then in her prime as a model) then I shouldn't expect to be loved like her. But women are like that too. For example, in Jane Austen's and the Bronte's novels you can see characters say things like, "Oh, she's lucky she found a husband at all, given how plain she is!"

There is also a case to be made that the objectification of women reached new heights when women joined the workforce. After the feminine mystique was demolished in the first wave of feminism, there had to be a way to compensate for the economic loss that came with women leaving the kitchen. They weren't buying the household stuff that they usually did. The only thing left was to ramp up the body image ideal. More makeup, more clothes, more surgeries, more diets. It's all about the $ $ $ $ $ . It also happened to put an unfair double standard on women, who not only had to be professionals but also had to be beautiful (a fluid concept that cannot be pinned down).

I think it also has to do with women competing for men and for jobs with other women. Some say that women dress up and wear make up etc. for the sake of other women, to intimidate them and to chase them away.

Rates of youth suicide and attempted youth suicide in Western societies are quite high. — Olivier5

Such is life in capitalist paradise. If a person cannot live up to a certain standard, then they should not live at all. It's what the whole pro-assisted suicide culture is telling us.

Not in the context of the patriarch's fallibility.
An Orthodox patriarch is not the same as the Roman pope. If the pope advertises something, then this comes with the blessing of his infallibility*, while this is not the case with a patriarch.



(*Some limitations apply; the pope's infallibility applies only to matters such as faith.)

How can you tell whether some reasoning is false..........
— baker

By considering the premisses stated or implied and the conclusions purportedly derived from them.

......and some behavior is bad?
— baker

I can tell that it's wrong to rape a woman either because she refuses sex or indeed for any other supposed reason. You can do this too. You don't need to ask me how. You're already there.

I can give you deontology and utilitarianism and intuitionism if you need the philosophical bases. But for this thread topic it really is not necessary. — Cuthbert

You are forgetting the role of the power relationship between the parties involved. What is true and moral is decided by the one who has more power.

Well, I wouldn’t assume they didn’t want to be in the relationship, although I would agree that it’s a possibility. I was referring specifically here to an ongoing relationship. My point is that I don’t think people are necessarily aware of this structure of affect while they’re in a conceptual-level discussion. And if they are aware, they don’t necessarily think it should factor into the discussion. Which I think is fine as long as there is no ongoing relationship between affected positions, or any chance of actual interaction. — Possibility

Ah yes, the old, "I love you, but you're such an idiot/loser/slut!"

There are things that one just wouldn't say to someone one loves. If a person calls you names, calls you stupid, makes disparaging remarks about your character, and so on, then they just don't love you and aren't your friend, even if they claim otherwise.

Women do that to women as well. In fact, even more frequently than men, insofar a woman has more interactions with other women than with men.
— baker

Sort of. Hatred, yes. Violence, no.

By whom were you hit more often? By men or by women?

But that would either make an end to the power game, or take it to a whole new level.
— baker

I agree with the first part - that’s kind of the point. But what ‘whole new level’ are you referring to?

When the nature of the (desired) power relationship is clearly spelled out ("I bring home the money, so I have the say!"), the parties involved cannot deny or ignore it anymore, and it seeps into every communication, every interaction between them.

The significance in the context of this invasion is the similarity of Putin's embrace of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Falangists who used the Roman Catholic Church to bring legitimacy to their fascism. — Paine

You are forgetting that the Orthodox Church doesn't work the same way as the Roman Catholic Church (or the Protestant churches).

The Orthodox do not and cannot make a claim to divine justification and infallibility, while the Roman Catholics do (as do Protestants).

As a rule of thumb, I think it is safe to say it will be kind of scary for anyone in the future who has to live in a country that becomes occupied/controlled by the PRC in their bid for world domination, unless perhaps you are one of people that enjoys things like getting a cavity search on a daily basis . — dclements

While more and more people in the Western capitalist paradise have to wear diapers to work and literally piss and shit in their pants because they don't get to take a bathroom break. Not to mention how normal it has become to live in constant fear of losing your job. In the Western capitalist paradise!

I will admit it has kind of the old school church mentality of "we sometimes have to kill the heathens in order to try to save some of their souls" or perhaps maybe a kind of old Manifest Destiny vibe to it where Russia has to do what Russia has to do in or to keep socialism/communism alive. — dclements

No, it has nothing to do with socialism/communism. It has to do with common decency.

Instead of seeing it in terms of "total world dominance by the US and its client states" we can see it in terms of "total world dominance by consumerism and bad faith".
— baker

I suppose, we could see it that way, but if consumerism is led by America (the world's largest consumer market) then it boils down to the same thing. — Apollodorus

The problem is that not all Americans (as in: American citizens) are the same, nor are all Russians (as in: Russian citizens), or all Germans (as in: German citizens), and so on. Nations don't exist as homogenous, unified entities, so using the national name can sometimes be misleading.

It may well be that mankind is "willingly" heading in this direction, but that "will" is due to ignorance of the fact that by acting on it we reduce ourselves to consuming entities chained to a self-interested system over which we have no influence or control.

Can you come up with a good reason as to why people shouldn't do that?
I'm asking this in earnest, because from what I've seen, people generally don't see this as a problem. They don't seem to see a problem in having a lot of money and fancy education titles to their names, while in their heart, they are lumpenproletariat.

I'm not saying that the US and her allies are the "good guys" and Russia, China, and/or anyone else not happy with the West are the "bad guys" as it is a given that at any given moment if those in power in the West are asleep at the switch that other powers will take advantage of it. What I am saying is that when these countries overplay their hand in trying to undermine the West and/or seize more power for themselves through military means that they should expect pushback or retaliation from the US and her allies. I think you can agree on that. — dclements

So the West is fully entitled to undermine the safety of others, but others may not even defend themselves?