343
Exclusive: US to send depleted-uranium munitions to Ukraine
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
343 points (91.7% liked)
World News
32075 readers
1099 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
The real alternative is for Russians to go home. Who the fuck cares who's using them? They're being invaded. Russia didn't need to invade them, but they thought they could get away with it (again). This isnt the first invasion of a sovereign country Russia has done. It isn't even the first invasion of Ukraine. The US didn't get involved in the others. Are we just going to excuse those?
Have you ever played 4x games? Do you know what encirclement is? When an opponent is ringing your territory with bases while they keep telling you it's totally cool bro, they're just working on their defenses while making alliances with players adjacent to you, what do you consider is their end game?
Yeah, everyone Russia has invaded has been for defence. Sure buddy. The real world is more complex than a 4X game, but even then you can use that to understand why someone would invade another country. They wanted to steal the resources and population. You may use your statement as a justification, but it is never the actual reason. The excuse of it being defensive is rediculous. Yeah, invading a sovereign country (multiple times) is sure to make the alliance "encircling" you stop. Seriously? Do you believe that rhetoric or are you just saying it because you're supposed to?
I don't know why people keep repeating this. Do you honestly think this is a coherent point? Russia is obviously not going to go home no matter how many times you're going to repeat it. It's a meaningless and useless statement that literally solves nothing. Either NATO can defeat Russia or not, so far it looks like NATO is not able to do so. What NATO is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict without changing the outcome. That means more people dying and having their lives ruined so that US military industry can make a profit and so that US can try and weaken Russia geopolitically. Anybody who thinks the west is in this conflict to help Ukraine is an utter imbecile.
Should the US have sent supplies to the allies in WWI and WWII before joining? It was just prolonging the war and causing people to die, right?
The reason the US is doing it is not morality. Everyone knows that. International politics is never about morality, it's about power. However, that doesn't mean it isn't also the moral option.
Also, NATO and the US are not in the war. We're sending supplies. The US isn't even sending the good stuff. We're sending parts of our stockpile that's old and has just been sitting around waiting for a use. They haven't sent the newer technology so it it isn't studied in case a real enemy requires them to be used.
It takes an incredible amount of historical illiteracy to try and draw parallels between WW2 and the proxy war US is waging against Russia in Ukraine. However, if you weren't historically illiterate, then you'd also know that US companies continued working with the nazis well into the war, and IBM is famously responsible for facilitating the holocaust.
Also, NATO and the US are very obviously in this war, and one has to be utterly intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
When the US government was providing resources to the allies, was it good or bad? I'm not talking companies or anything else. You're dodging the question. There are enough parallels to draw a comparison. You just know what the answer would be and it conflicts with your beliefs, so you can't admit it, to yourself or others.
When US government provides resources to these people, is it good or bad?
And this is why your comparison is historically illiterate. The actual comparison would be US funding the nazis in WW2. You're either ignorant of whom US is propping up in Ukraine or you're just dishonest. Either way not a good look.
Still didn't answer the question. More What-aboutism. How unexpected! /s
I did answer your question in detail, and it's safe to dismiss anybody who uses whataboutism as a form of argument. That's just a logical fallacy that imbeciles use to try and create a double standard.
You didn't, and I didn't use What-aboutism. I pointed out that you did. You said "what about...." What's wrong with you?
You libs always want to demand every single historical event be perceived and analyzed in a vacuum. This is why you get mocked so often.
I did, and you crying about whataboutism is what I'm referring to. Anybody who calls out whataboutism as a form of argument is engaging in intellectual dishonesty. The question you set up is fundamentally wrong, and you're fishing for an answer for that setup. This is like me asking you if you've stopped beating your wife.
I love that, in your opinion, calling out What-aboutism is "intellectual dishonesty" but using it is totally OK.
I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn't because it was wrong to ask.
That's be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It's either "I never did", "yes", or "no". Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they'll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, "what about..."). It's avoiding the question.
Calling whataboutism simply serves to set up a double standard for yourself and others. That's what makes it intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, there is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing out hypocrisy and double standards.
I answered your question by explaining to you in detail why the question is nonsensical. US is currently supporting fascists in Ukraine, trying to compare that to US supporting allies fighting against fascists in WW2 is backwards. The fact that you can't comprehend that says volumes.
Once again you missed the whole point there which is setting up a false premise and then trying to get the other person to work within that premise. This is precisely what you did with your question. Pointing that out isn't avoiding the question it's calling out your bullshit.