If you have a point, please make it more explicit. — frank
Isaac is very angry that we would forget what kind of a bully the US has been. We might forget this because it's obvious that Russia is the aggressor here, Ukraine is the victim and the US is aiding Ukraine. Isaac would be extremely angry if now the US would look good as a "white knight in shining armour" coming to help a victim. Because the US is bad. Remember all the children that died in Iraq thanks to the sanctions etc. Even if this is a thread about the war in Ukraine, that doesn't matter. — ssu
I think the root of the debate is a profound difference in attitude toward conflict. Where there's a bully, you'll say it's the responsibility of the rest of the population to bow for the sake of peace.
The opposing view is that you have to smash the bully in the nose if you want peace. — frank
Interesting, so what are your objections to this, considering you had previously expressed doubt that Russia sabotaged their own pipeline? — _db
The "bridge-burning" theory is plausible, but highly speculative. — SophistiCat
Nonviolent resistance is not non-resistance. — unenlightened
In theory. In practice, how would you suggest Ukraine to resist Putin's fascist regime and invading armies in a non-violent manner? — Olivier5
Reminds me of MalcolmX accusing Martin Luther king of being an Uncle Tom.
Nonviolent resistance is not non-resistance. — unenlightened
the methods are well developed by Gandhi, King and others. — unenlightened
Another detail making it more likely to be Russia is the ease of access. It’s being said they could just wheel explosive down the pipe using the inspection pig. — apokrisis
Surrender assures peace and save lives. — frank
Those methods have not proved to work against a ruthless, amoral enemy. — Olivier5
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/mahatma-gandhi-changed-political-protestGandhi brought Satyagraha to India in 1915, and was soon elected to the Indian National Congress political party. He began to push for independence from the United Kingdom, and organized resistance to a 1919 law that gave British authorities carte blanche to imprison suspected revolutionaries without trial. Britain responded brutally to the resistance, mowing down 400 unarmed protesters in the Amritsar Massacre.
I don't think those who advocated Ukraine's surrender to Russia had any kind of resistance in mind. — frank
if we assume that life in 'independence' would be worse for the people there (a significant assumption), the fact remains that two options are open to us to do something about that
1. Keep fighting wars to keep them under the control of the (marginally) better government.
2. Keep fighting revolutions to make it not matter what government they are under the control of.
The latter has the advantage of freeing millions more from misery and you've presented little by way of clear evidence that the former is somehow so much easier as to commend on the grounds of achievability alone. — Isaac
Surrender assures peace and save lives. — frank
What it does though is relieve the West from the cost and the responsibility for the war. — SophistiCat
Are you seriously suggesting that the British Empire was anything other than ruthless and amoral? — unenlightened
comparatively speaking. — Olivier5
Obviously Putin wouldn't stop at Ukraine. Perhaps the territorial annexations might end there, yet the fact is that Russia would want to enlarge it's sphere-of-influence to the West. Finlandization: my country knows the game extremely well.But speaking of the cost of the war, what do you think accounts for the continuing support of the West? Fear for their own safety? Or what? — frank
The argument is too odious to continue. — unenlightened
It’s not normal to be so excited by nuclear bombs. — Oliver Carroll
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.