KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion, at least, on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans would agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism.

---

Nope.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism.

---

Nope.

---

Disagree, but he is free to explain how I have reached an incorrect conclusion. But he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Do you care to give it a shot?

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a %A0characterization you seemed to take issue with. %A0

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers. %A0

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. %A0Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. %A0But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. %A0His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all %A0occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin %A0to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism.

---

Nope.

---

Disagree, but he is free to explain how I have reached an incorrect conclusion. But he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Do you care to give it a shot?

---

What is it that makes whataboutism a fallacy?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

LOL Wrong on all accounts, Russian cuck.

"Stop fighting or we'll rape you harder." Is quite a Russian and unsurprising stance from you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a %A0characterization you seemed to take issue with. %A0

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers. %A0

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. %A0Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. %A0But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. %A0His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all %A0occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin %A0to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism.

---

Nope.

---

Disagree, but he is free to explain how I have reached an incorrect conclusion. But he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Do you care to give it a shot?

---

What is it that makes whataboutism a fallacy?

---

Comparing two different events that share some similar characteristics to say one is just as bad, just as good, or the same as the other.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

LOL Wrong on all accounts, Russian cuck.

"Stop fighting or we'll rape you harder." Is quite a Russian and unsurprising stance from you.

---

Except that the Donbas was never fighting Russia. They were fighting Kiev and getting killed by American weapons.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a %A0characterization you seemed to take issue with. %A0

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers. %A0

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. %A0Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. %A0But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. %A0His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all %A0occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin %A0to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism.

---

Nope.

---

Disagree, but he is free to explain how I have reached an incorrect conclusion. But he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Do you care to give it a shot?

---

What is it that makes whataboutism a fallacy?

---

Comparing two different events that share some similar characteristics to say one is just as bad, just as good, or the same as the other.

---

No, that's called precedent. The fallacy of whataboutism is that two wrongs make a right. When KaiBear says that our invasions of Mexico were justified, by definition he's not arguing whataboutism.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

LOL Wrong on all accounts, Russian cuck.

"Stop fighting or we'll rape you harder." Is quite a Russian and unsurprising stance from you.

---

Except that the Donbas was never fighting Russia. They were fighting Kiev and getting killed by American weapons.

---

Yeah, all those released criminals and "covert" Russian soldiers and officers running the whole operation getting killed....

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a %A0characterization you seemed to take issue with. %A0

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers. %A0

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. %A0Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. %A0But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. %A0His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all %A0occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin %A0to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism.

---

Nope.

---

Disagree, but he is free to explain how I have reached an incorrect conclusion. But he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Do you care to give it a shot?

---

What is it that makes whataboutism a fallacy?

---

Comparing two different events that share some similar characteristics to say one is just as bad, just as good, or the same as the other.

---

No, that's called precedent. The fallacy of whataboutism is that two wrongs make a right. When KaiBear says that our invasions of Mexico were justified, by definition he's not arguing whataboutism.

---

Kai said: "Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint." And then, "My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico."

Regardless, if you have a problem with the terminology, call it moral equivalency if you like. Kai is pointing to US actions that may be viewed as bad by some (or good, as it were) and saying Russia is justified in doing the same thing. It remains a logical fallacy and a poor argument.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a %A0characterization you seemed to take issue with. %A0

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers. %A0

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. %A0Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. %A0But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. %A0His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all %A0occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin %A0to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism.

---

Nope.

---

Disagree, but he is free to explain how I have reached an incorrect conclusion. But he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Do you care to give it a shot?

---

What is it that makes whataboutism a fallacy?

---

Comparing two different events that share some similar characteristics to say one is just as bad, just as good, or the same as the other.

---

No, that's called precedent. The fallacy of whataboutism is that two wrongs make a right. When KaiBear says that our invasions of Mexico were justified, by definition he's not arguing whataboutism.

---

Kai said: "Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint." And then, "My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico."

Regardless, if you have a problem with the terminology, call it moral equivalency if you like. Kai is pointing to US actions that may be viewed as bad by some (or good, as it were) and saying Russia is justified in doing the same thing. It remains a logical fallacy and a poor argument.

---

He said it was justified in his opinion. Moral equivalency arguments aren't always wrong.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

ROFL more absurd RU propaganda from the resident cuck again.

Yeah, makes no sense a country would build up a military while being actively invaded.....Good grief.

And complete surrender and capitulation is not any kind of negotiation.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

ROFL more absurd RU propaganda from the resident cuck again.

Yeah, makes no sense a country would built up a military while being actively invaded.....Good grief.

And complete surrender and capitulation is not any kind of negotiation.

---

The Istanbul agreement was in no way a complete surrender. The consequences of rejecting it may well be. Good luck with that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

ROFL more absurd RU propaganda from the resident cuck again.

Yeah, makes no sense a country would built up a military while being actively invaded.....Good grief.

And complete surrender and capitulation is not any kind of negotiation.

---

The Istanbul agreement was in no way a complete surrender. The consequences of rejecting it may well be. Good luck with that.

---

Indeed it was. Anyone not sucking Putin dick can see that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

I don't think you're reviewing the evidence, or if you are, you interpreting it through your own biased lens. There is ample evidence Russia has engaged in human rights abuses and is targeting infrastructure, including Ukrainian power grids.

I see no evidence of a stated or implied policy of wanting Russia broken up. I do see efforts to counter Russian bad acts in the world - of which there are many. Between cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage, interference, and now invading sovereign countries, we have ample evidence of Russia aggression in the world today. Putin is a guy who takes advantage of situations, and obviously, he sees a weak president in Biden he can take advantage of.

With respect to your last paragraph, what countries currently pose a threat to Russia?

Again, if Russia is justified in invading for the stated reason of denazification, merely taking small portions of Ukraine makes absolutely no sense. So again, why is taking a small portion of Ukraine a viable solution for your stated justifications for the war?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a %A0characterization you seemed to take issue with. %A0

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers. %A0

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. %A0Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. %A0But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. %A0His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all %A0occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin %A0to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism.

---

Nope.

---

Disagree, but he is free to explain how I have reached an incorrect conclusion. But he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Do you care to give it a shot?

---

What is it that makes whataboutism a fallacy?

---

Comparing two different events that share some similar characteristics to say one is just as bad, just as good, or the same as the other.

---

No, that's called precedent. The fallacy of whataboutism is that two wrongs make a right. When KaiBear says that our invasions of Mexico were justified, by definition he's not arguing whataboutism.

---

Kai said: "Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint." And then, "My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico."

Regardless, if you have a problem with the terminology, call it moral equivalency if you like. Kai is pointing to US actions that may be viewed as bad by some (or good, as it were) and saying Russia is justified in doing the same thing. It remains a logical fallacy and a poor argument.

---

He said it was justified in his opinion. Moral equivalency arguments aren't always wrong.

---

Sure they are. A moral equivalency argument wherein the similarities are few is always absurd. Putin's invasion should be justified on its own accord, without referring to other countries' perceived similar conduct.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

I don't think you're reviewing the evidence, or if you are, you interpreting it through your own biased lens. There is ample evidence Russia has engaged in human rights abuses and is targeting infrastructure, including Ukrainian power grids.

I see no evidence of a stated or implied policy of wanting Russia broken up. I do see efforts to counter Russian bad acts in the world - of which there are many. Between cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage, interference, and now invading sovereign countries, we have ample evidence of Russia aggression in the world today. Putin is a guy who takes advantage of situations, and obviously, he sees a weak president in Biden he can take advantage of.

With respect to your last paragraph, what countries currently pose a threat to Russia?

Again, if Russia is justified in invading for the stated reason of denazification, merely taking small portions of Ukraine makes absolutely no sense. So again, why is taking a small portion of Ukraine a viable solution for your stated justifications for the war?

---

Because, as I've always said, the Nazi problem is just one facet of the larger threat from NATO. Russia has secured a buffer against that threat and ensured that no Western army will penetrate it.

Oh the "NATO threat" myth again.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

I don't think you're reviewing the evidence, or if you are, you interpreting it through your own biased lens. There is ample evidence Russia has engaged in human rights abuses and is targeting infrastructure, including Ukrainian power grids.

I see no evidence of a stated or implied policy of wanting Russia broken up. I do see efforts to counter Russian bad acts in the world - of which there are many. Between cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage, interference, and now invading sovereign countries, we have ample evidence of Russia aggression in the world today. Putin is a guy who takes advantage of situations, and obviously, he sees a weak president in Biden he can take advantage of.

With respect to your last paragraph, what countries currently pose a threat to Russia?

Again, if Russia is justified in invading for the stated reason of denazification, merely taking small portions of Ukraine makes absolutely no sense. So again, why is taking a small portion of Ukraine a viable solution for your stated justifications for the war?

---

Because, as I've always said, the Nazi problem is just one facet of the larger threat from NATO. Russia has secured a buffer against that threat and ensured that no Western army will penetrate it.

---

LOL. So the stated justification is just one of the problems, and now that Putin has a little more real estate, the perceived threat from NATO is remediated.

Sure, Sam. You're a hoot.

"Just War." LOL.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

I don't think you're reviewing the evidence, or if you are, you interpreting it through your own biased lens. There is ample evidence Russia has engaged in human rights abuses and is targeting infrastructure, including Ukrainian power grids.

I see no evidence of a stated or implied policy of wanting Russia broken up. I do see efforts to counter Russian bad acts in the world - of which there are many. Between cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage, interference, and now invading sovereign countries, we have ample evidence of Russia aggression in the world today. Putin is a guy who takes advantage of situations, and obviously, he sees a weak president in Biden he can take advantage of.

With respect to your last paragraph, what countries currently pose a threat to Russia?

Again, if Russia is justified in invading for the stated reason of denazification, merely taking small portions of Ukraine makes absolutely no sense. So again, why is taking a small portion of Ukraine a viable solution for your stated justifications for the war?

---

Because, as I've always said, the Nazi problem is just one facet of the larger threat from NATO. Russia has secured a buffer against that threat and ensured that no Western army will penetrate it.

---

LOL. So the stated justification is just one of the problems, and now that Putin has a little more real estate, the perceived threat from NATO is remediated.

Sure, Sam. You're a hoot.

"Just War." LOL.

---

You've always been the one focused on Nazis as the sole issue for some reason. That's not Russia's position and never has been.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Guess how many times the US has invaded Mexico.

---

Two things:

1) Since the 1840's?

2) Your point?

Some might say we are being invaded by Mexico as we speak. But I am sure Sam would see any action against Mexico as unjust. His "Just War" beliefs only seem to apply to despots and dictators who are enemies of the United States.

---

A. The US has invaded Mexico at least 4 times . In my opinion at least on all occasions the invasions were justified.
B. Doubt Mexicans were agree with my imperialistic viewpoint.
C. My point is that Russia is acting little different with Ukraine as the US has done with Mexico.
D. US wartime tactics are better than that of Russia to be sure.
Or ( again ) at least in my opinion.

Although I would not expect residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Baghdad, or Berlin to necessarily agree.

---

Yeah, I figured your post was whataboutism. A few questions: what were the four invasions in question and have any of them occurred since the 1840s? And in what ways were these four invasions similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? And I take it you believe imperialism in modern times is a good thing or at least not a bad thing? Does the US invasion of Mexico in the 1840s justify Russia's invasion today? Is it important to note that Russia is run by a dictator whereas the U.S. has generally freed the peoples in the wars it has been involved in?

Just wanna see how far the moral equivalency extends

---

So you get to establish all the parameters of the 'whataboulism'; demand evidence to support my opinion while positioning yourself as the final judge and jury.

LOL

Don't remotely have the time or interest to 'convince' you my friend.

But the next time I am in Texas will be glad to discuss it all over a steak dinner.

My treat.

---

What are you talking about? I am simply trying to determine what it is you are trying to convince me of. No need to get so defensive You've made a moral equivalency argument that seems to suggest you believe the Russian dictator is justified in invading a sovereign country because the US may have engaged in imperialistic tactics back in the 1800s. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would bring up the "4 invasions" of Mexico, whatever you believe those to be. That is why I have asked what should be very simple questions to help better understand your position.

But it seems you'd rather be coy than provide what should be simple explanations in support of your position.

Happy to meet you over a steak dinner anytime if you would rather discuss this in private, but I find it interesting that you don't want to go on record on this board.

EDIT: Never thought I would see the day when the party of Reagan is actually defending Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. Boy have we lost our way.

---

Reagan remains the best president of my lifetime.

Even so he chose to invade Grenada, an extremely small island , with over 8.000 troops supported by a large fleet of warships.

Arguably the most massive example of military overkill in US history. A military operation best to remain forgotten.

Again the point being….. every super power, every empire, acts out in their perceived self interests and justifies it later. The United States has taken identical actions throughout the western hemisphere and the Middle East dozens of times.

We just look as such actions as 'necessary' and somehow even 'noble' . We are always the 'good guys ' of course.

Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence ( domination if you wish ) for centuries. The United States never cared a flip about Ukraine; even when Stalin intentionally starved to death 1-3 million Ukrainians back in the 1930's.

After the victorious end of WW2 , Stalin executed 100,000 to 300,000 Ukrainians for 'collaborating' with the Germans.

Again, the United States barely even noticed .

So why NOW is the United States spending billions of dollars ( better spent domestically) on munitions for one of the most graft filled countries on the planet ?

Why is the States sending military operatives in a war zone that does not remotely impact US strategic security ?

We are risking nuclear war for no reason that directly impacts the American people.

Its simply crazy.

---

Whether we should be spending money in Ukraine is a very different subject than whether Putin is justified in invading. As I have said repeatedly, I do not disagree that we shouldn't be getting involved in this dispute or spending money on this dispute. I've been clear on that from the very beginning. I've also said repeatedly that our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO was a massive miscalculation by Biden. While Russia might have invaded either way, the last thing he needed was to give them was the perfect excuse for doing so.

Where I disagree with posters like Sam (and apparently, yourself) is when you guys try to excuse or justify the evil acts of the little Russian despot. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and an evil man, and those of us who are intellectually honest know that the whole "getting rid of Nazi" justification for the Russian invasion is total bull **** - mere pretext. This is a land grab, and nothing more. Reasonable and moral people cannot justify it.

So when I hear your moral equivalency arguments, it pisses me off. We have done nothing comparable to what Russia has done in Ukraine, and the attempts to excuse such acts because we once invaded Grenada (and gave it back as soon as we freed the political prisoners and deposed the leftists coup leader) simply doesn't justify what Russia is doing. Yet you guys continue to offer the moral equivalency arguments.

Let's agree that we shouldn't be over there. But let's also agree that was Russia is doing is wrong, if one has any human decency at all.

---

I believe you to be an excellent contributor , a moral upright individual and a first rate parent.

We just disagree here.

Sorry but the US historical record is speaks for itself and cannot whitewashed by time constraints.

The US fire bombed Tokyo killing 100,000 civilians in a single night . But we won the war so Curtis LeMay was never executed as war criminal.

The US established concentration camps in the Philippines during our war with the locals who dared to want independence. Tens of thousands of civilians died in them .

But we won the war so no one was held accountable.


Are the Russians far more brutal …..yes.

But such distinctions mean little to the individual victim.

Over 40 people killed at a concert in Moscow

US Embassy has already warned American citizens of a terrorist attack at the concert.#Moscow pic.twitter.com/ChvztItUVr

— Rahul Bhardwaj (@_rahulism_) March 22, 2024

Jack Bauer said:

---

Over 40 people killed at a concert in Moscow

US Embassy has already warned American citizens of a terrorist attack at the concert.#Moscow pic.twitter.com/ChvztItUVr

— Rahul Bhardwaj (@_rahulism_) March 22, 2024

---

Still another tragedy.

These 40 Russians had as much right to life as any Ukrainian, Jew , Palestinian or Christian Nigerian.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

The propaganda op of associating Ukranian nationalism with Nazism worked wonders on people like Sam….

---

DC ruling class uses propaganda constantly of associating American nationalism with Nazis and it has worked well here at home….so why not?

In America even traditional architecture is fascism…full on America 1st nationalism is Nazism.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Not sure this adds anything to the discussion. It's just multiplying the same or similar reports of civilian casualties, which we all agree do happen.

---

Providing evidence of killing with abandon - a characterization you seemed to take issue with.

---

One can always cherry-pick incidents for emotional effect. I take issue with the characterization because the evidence doesn't support it overall.

---

Sure it does, especially when you have multiple reports of human rights atrocities committed by Russian soldiers.

But I am not surprised in the least you attempt to downplay or minimize the ample evidence of same.

---

There are multiple reports of Ukrainian atrocities too. The question is how widespread and systematic they are.

---

I appreciate the whataboutism.

---

No, I was just trying to explain the difference between anecdotal and quantitative evidence.

---

I am sure they're all just made up stories. Mother Russia wouldn't do anything like that, since this is a completely justified and moral invasion and all...

---

Again, the justification of the war and the conduct of the war are different issues.

---

So, invading was the morally-right decision in your mind, but you may not approve of Russia's war-time tactics?

---

Right.

---

What war-time tactics do you not approve of, exactly?

And what would you like to see happen in Russia's morally just destruction of Ukraine? Kill/imprison Ukrainian leadership and take over the country? Just incorporate it into mother Russia as another Russian state or territory, and subjugate its people? And if/when that happens, will Russia be morally just if it decides to invade other surrounding countries, given your stated justification for the war?

---

I don't approve of indiscriminate killing. But I don't think it's as widespread on the Russian side as you suggest.

I would have liked to see an agreement early in the war whereby Russia took a small amount of territory and the hostilities ended. At this point they will probably have to take everything east of the Dnieper. I don't think they want to take any more than that, but if we work hard enough we might force them to.

---

What makes you think the indiscriminate killing on the Russian side isn't as widespread as I suggest?

And why do you think Russia is justified in taking a "small amount of territory"? What additional territory is it entitled to, and why?

And since you believe Russia's proffered reason for the war - getting rid of the Nazis that have allegedly infiltrated the Ukrainian govt. - how is that achieved by taking a small amount of territory, instead of toppling the Ukrainian Nazi regime? I mean, Russia has to get rid of the Nazis, right? How is keeping the current regime in power going to do that? Doesn't the entire Ukrainian govt. need to be wiped out?

And finally, what other countries - if any - do you believe Russian will be morally justified in invading next?

---

I don't think the weight of evidence supports the charge. There hasn't been systematic targeting of civilians or civilian infrastructure. Russia wants to incorporate eastern Ukraine, not destroy it.

Putin knows that our grand strategy, if not our stated policy, is to break up Russia in a way similar to the breakup of the old Soviet Union. He rightly sees this as an existential threat. If he were interested in a land grab, the time to do it would have been ten years ago when Ukraine's army was virtually non-existent. To spend years watching a massive military build-up and issuing repeated warnings would make no sense.

Russia has no right, and I would argue no desire, to invade countries that pose no threat. As for de-nazifying the entirety of Ukraine, that comes with its own set of problems. Putin hoped to accomplish it through negotiation, and it was one of the topics addressed in the scuttled agreement at Istanbul. The alternative, which has been highly successful, is to destroy the right-wing militias, demilitarize the regime, and remove eastern Ukraine from their grasp.

---

The propaganda op of associating Ukranian nationalism with Nazism worked wonders on people like Sam.

---

Says the guy who incessantly conflates the two.