don't think the exact figures are available on whatever discounts were involved but the principle of indirect financing here stands, regardless. — Baden

I think you actually know it means to finance something. :rofl:

We should recognize that powerful nations will pursue their interests as brutally as they can get away with, regardless of who they are. — Baden

Side taking is an act of free will, so we have to all accept that. I have changed sides on occasion, given the facts, admittedly reaching me from the media, but also from media outlets from both sides.

Nations have a right to defend themselves, I think we all agree on that. Or do we? Alliances are one thing, false promises are not a defense. Nuclear arms is another, but I am not sure we want to take that route, although it has worked. Defense is the key, but with all the defense spending only a few nations are able to defend themselves. The solution? More defense spending of course.

I don't believe in insulting people, it's a sign of not being able to make a convincing argument. If you want, here is a quotable quote:

“Saddam, Bush, and Putin – they are all dogs,” al-Idreesi said. “And if Putin could learn anything from Iraq, that is this will be the beginning of his end.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/as-russia-invades-ukraine-iraqis-remember-painful-war-memories

I don't recall the end of Bush.

Being Irish doesn't make you any more moral than any one else, frank nor does being Catholic, I'd wager. But thanks for the vote fo support, I guess. — Baden

Biden ended the support for the war against Yemen. The support came from Obama and Trump.

But yes. Some Irish people are scum.

Biden ended the support for the war against Yemen. — frank

Was this before or after the US$650 million arms deal with SA in November 2021?

Biden ended the support for the war against Yemen. — frank

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/15/biden-doubles-down-failed-yemen-policy

"When running for office, President Biden promised to “make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil.” In the context of the Yemen conflict, fulfilling this promise may not be easy, but it is clear: In Biden’s own words, America must “end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.” Unfortunately, the administration’s response to the recent escalation in the conflict has been to revert to the same failed playbook as previous administrations, risking further complicity in the Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) coalition’s violations.

...

In response to the recent escalation, the Biden administration apparently has doubled down on support to the coalition, announcing the sale of additional fighter aircraft to the UAE. Biden said the administration is considering redesignating the Houthis a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”
....

In addition to potentially violating U.S. law, continuing arms sales to the coalition puts the U.S. at risk of complicity in possible war crimes. The sales also fly in the face of justice and accountability for previous violations given the coalition’s dreadfully flawed investigations of its own strikes."

Thanks for the link to the Reuters report. "What are our leaders doing?" Well, they are prolonging your suffering for some good reason. National honor I guess.

Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia. There would have to be protection for the Russian language in Ukraine. And there is something called de-Nazification.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60785754

Ok so fight on for honor, principles etc. In the end it will be worth it. This looks to be more like a war between Europe and the United States. Someone pointed out the US never left its WW2 military bases.

US Military Bases are located in over 135 countries. Russia has 9, some of them radar stations, hence the empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad#Current_bases

Oh Yes President Putin has a lot of empire building to do. As the nations of the world watch helplessly, maybe Russian Propaganda is working.

Your point is that Biden didn't end the support quickly enough to avoid becoming partially responsible for the deaths of innocent people.

I appreciate your pointing that out.

It's bedtime.

Was this before or after the US$650 million arms deal with SA in November 2021? — StreetlightX

After. Liar.

No, my point is it may have been just a soundbite for the gullible like most politician's campaign promises. Good night.

No, my point is it may have been just a soundbite for the gullible like most politician's campaign promises. Good night. — Baden

Oh. No, he just ended it.

OK. If he did, that's good. (I originally wasn't referring to him in particular but your whole political establishment anyhow. And we'll judge them by their actions not their words etc.)

But yes. Some Irish people are scum. — frank

Wait a second... :chin: :lol:

After. — frank

Oh, how convenient.

And surely the US can be trusted to not continue such sales, given its stellar track record.

Meanwhile American material support of genocidal regimes like Israel or brutal dictatorships like Egypt continue apace.

For someone who likes to enjoy performative condemnation, you sure do alot of wiggling out of such performances when its people you like.

I originally wasn't referring to him in particular — Baden

You mentioned my voting record, so,

For someone who likes to enjoy performative condemnation, you sure do alot of wiggling out of such performances when its people you like. — StreetlightX

wut

You mentioned my voting record, so, — frank

I said you "may have voted for". I didn't know who you voted for and I was including congress. Anyhow...

Oh. OK.

Pakistan? How Pakistan? Actually Pakistan is just a great example and the way how the US treated a country that assisted a lot the fighters that the US fought and lost to. Pakistan is the crazy example of a country being an "ally" to both sides and getting away with it.

Afghanistan? Well, the Emirate of Afghanistan is back after fighting a long war against the US, which was backed by NATO. Even South Vietnam held a bit longer than the US backed Afghanistan. So did also the Najibullah regime too.

And finally Iraq. Well, I could start just how problematic and stressed the US-Iraqi relations are, but you would be bored, I guess, and this response would be too long. — ssu

LOL. This is exactly the double standards that agitates me. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal. The expansion of drone bombings into Pakistan were illegal. The extra-judicial murder of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was illegal. Either it's rule based or it's not.

And then an entire expose on the Cuban crisis to try to obfuscate the simple fact the Russians did what the US demanded because they knew full well it would lead to war. It sas their withdrawal that avoided the war, if they hadn't the US would've started a war against Cuba.

No man, fuck the USA and NATO just as much as Putin.

LOL. This is exactly the double standards that agitates me. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal. — Benkei

But then do you think that the war to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion illegal?

Do you think the United Nations going to war against North Korea after it invaded the South was illegal?

Do you think UK and France declaring war at Germany after it invaded Poland was illegal?

Or you just don't care?

Sorry, but I take the stance that countries can perform actions that they can be condemned about and similarly do something that can be supported.

Meanwhile American material support of genocidal regimes like Israel or brutal dictatorships like Egypt continue apace. — StreetlightX

It's useful to keep all this in mind and to condemn every illegal war, including the current aggression of a democracy by a dictatorship in Ukraine. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You need a legal standard to establish legality, are we talking about the UN Charter and the ICJ rulings?

It's useful to keep all this in mind and to condemn every illegal war, including the current aggression of a democracy by a dictatorship in Ukraine. Two wrongs don't make a right. — Olivier5

Don't recall saying otherwise, but sure.

I was recently reading about the concept of the ethical dilemma, specifically of the sort where a particular action is right and wrong at the same time.

One view is that ethical dilemmas of this kind only exist for world leaders as they act to advance the interests of their countries in the context of competition for political survival.

I think this issue is in the background of the discussions in this thread, though we seem to want to avoid facing it. What makes this interesting to me is how and why parties get close to dealing with it.

Why are you purposefully misrepresenting I was talking about the Gulf War when I'm referring to Iraq?

Why are you purposefully misrepresenting I was talking about the Gulf War when I'm referring to Iraq? — Benkei

I'm not misrepresenting you at all. I understood that you were talking about the 2003 invasion. But I was referring to another war.

But the question is what you think about these conflicts. Were they illegal?

The fact is sometimes you can condemn and sometimes justify. That the Soviet Union in a large part destroyed the Third Reich was totally justified. They had been attack. Even if just before they had divided Eastern Europe with Hitler (and attacked my country, btw).

It's useful to keep all this in mind and to condemn every illegal war, including the current aggression of a democracy by a dictatorship in Ukraine. Two wrongs don't make a right. — Olivier5

And those who don't condemn it, but accept issues like the annexation of Crimea by force should be as trolls left out of the discussion.

If people want to discuss the issues that Russia is using as propaganda talking points, then it would be good to understand that they are talking about issues that are used as propaganda. Let's take the case of NATO enlargement, one of the most cherished talking points among Ukrainian neo-nazis and US backed bioweapon labs etc. @dclements posted on another thread a great short video of the issue which does give an informative overview about the subject without falling to Anti-Americanism and hence indirectly promote the propaganda of the aggressor in the Ukrainian conflict.

If you haven't see it,

But the question is what you think about these conflicts. Were they illegal? — ssu

This is irrelevant to the point that plenty of illegal wars were fought by the USA and NATO and to now cry foul about Russia is just hypocrisy, which once again goes to the point that if legality isn't a relevant measure by all parties involved it shouldn't be an argument to absolve USA and NATO from their responsibility when considered strategically.

That some wars were justified and in accordance with international law doesn't diminish this point. Also, the Gulf War turned illegal.

For good order, based on international law the Ukraine invasion is illegal. Before people misunderstand my argument again as if it absolves Putin, it doesn't.

Don't recall saying otherwise, but sure. — StreetlightX

I think it's important to say these things unambiguously, not just "not say otherwise".

I think it's important to say these things unambiguously, not just "not say otherwise". — Olivier5

Yep. Recognizing that we live with contradictions might help us with clarity. Maybe.

I think — Olivier5

Of the things I care about even minimally, what 'you think' is not on the list.

That makes us even, I guess.

This is irrelevant to the point that plenty of illegal wars were fought by the USA and NATO and to now cry foul about Russia is just hypocrisy, which once again goes to the point that if legality isn't a relevant measure by all parties involved it shouldn't be an argument to absolve USA and NATO from their responsibility when considered strategically. — Benkei

This thread is about now about the war in Ukraine. Earlier it was about a crisis in Ukraine.

But when you say "to now cry foul about Russia is just hypocrisy", I would politely disagree. Simple plain facts should simply be acknowledged and that is not hypocrisy. If some actors have skeletons in their closet, it doesn't make the issue at hand different.

Before Putin invaded, you put the blame on the West, didn't care about Putin and demanded the acceptance of power projection and spheres of influence for Russia:

Russia's internal politics are irrelevant. I don't give a shit that Putin is a criminal. I care about avoiding needless bloodshed and accepting that regional powers project a sphere of influence in which you cannot fuck around without consequences. So all this IMF and NATO shit should be called out for what it is : provocations.

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate. — Benkei

And then when Russia does invade, what's your comment? Events that happen because of the US:

Bluff called. Watch how sanctions are all that will happen and Putin having effectively made the point Russia won't back off where its sphere of influence is concerned with a "cheap" war.

Let's hope it doesn't further escalate because that will result in a lot of people dying for some shitty geopolitical wrangling as a result of the US trying to project power into areas it doesn't even have realistic interests, meanwhile fucking with energy stability in Europe.

As usual citizens either pay or die for politicians' egos. — Benkei

Then you have made quite clear how skeptical we should be of everything we actually can see from Ukraine. And people were too oriented to NATO and stuff. I got that.

Yet remembering the Benkei that I had a discussion about Israel and it's actions, that Benkei did make a moral judgement and did take a moral stance. He didn't think it's hypocrisy to cry foul and likely wouldn't have accepted "spheres of influence" and other realpolitik justifications in that case. He wrote:

Both the land grabs in 1948 and 1967 are prime examples of aggression and war crimes terrible. And while the Arabs and Palestinians certainly weren't innocent in 1948 the number of innocent victims targeted by the Arab nations and Israel shows a clear difference, with Israel Zionist elites already showing it's true colours in 1948. After 1967 the balance of power in the region had permanently shifted in favour of Israel, or actually before that, 1967 simply was the proof in the pudding.

What is not complicated about the history is that Israel stole land twice and continues to do so through its colonialist settler program, evictions, apartheid rule and stranglehold "occupation". What is not complicated is that there are clear oppressors and oppressed. What is not complicated is that Israeli war crimes far outstrip anything the Arabs and Palestinians have committed combined. What is not complicated, therefore, is having moral clarity as to who deserves our support and who doesn't. — Benkei

So the question is, why the above condemnation (which I agree with, actually, don't find anything incorrect there) is only preserved for Israel, but not for Russia and Putin? Now for some reason I find myself with a realpolitik (or anti-US?) Benkei who doesn't care what Russia does. (Perhaps it's all Western propaganda or what?)