Rather than fight Putin in #Ukraine , Americans can best serve society and the world by addressing problems at home, beginning with the Supreme Court
@RassBariaw A wise man once said "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Have you heard that one before, or did you just forget?
If allowed free reign to commit genocide, Russia will continue to export its corruption and suppression of other peoples.
Anyone concerned with racism and oppression should be supporting #Ukraine. #RussiaIsATerroristState
@TheBigDemoDip not only have I not forgotten, but I know that bigots killed him.
@RassBariaw Then clearly you don't understand the meaning of the words. You purport to speak for justice, but are completely fine with injustice when it doesn't occur in your part of the world.
@TheBigDemoDip I clearly understand; I disagree with and would rather fight bigots at home.
@RassBariaw You can fight for justice where and how you see fit, but stop telling people that they should not support #Ukraine in its fight to not be raped and murdered.
@TheBigDemoDip I shall assume you mean well and ask: would you accept Russian and Chinese military bases stationed in Cuba and Venezuela along with their nuclear missiles?
Why?
@RassBariaw @TheBigDemoDip Ukraine was not accepted into NATO, even provisionally. No NATO or US bases were built there. Russia blasting and looting based on what they supposed might happen, on some unspecified date in the future, isn’t something any of would accept from the US in your hypo.
There are already multiple NATO countries on Russia’s border, so their excuse is as ludicrous as the “secret biolabs” and “Nazis that throw too many gay pride parades” tries.
@AmberWavesofFlame if communicating with sincerity, first answer the question. I see JD in your profile.
@RassBariaw then you know that I’m going to first have to get you to define what you mean by “accept,” because there’s a wide range of possible responses the US can and has used drastically short of Russia’s actions, and it’s muddying the waters to implicitly equate them all. I’m also going to object to relevance, because as I pointed out in my response, the analogy you set up is so far from what happened that it’s arguing from flawed framing around a flawed premise.
@AmberWavesofFlame indeed a lawyerly response. Re-read my prior post and answer accordingly.
@RassBariaw I believe in answering good faith with good faith, but you have shown none. But to further explain, we can best extrapolate from our stance towards nations like N. Korea, a hostile nation w nukes in range of the US, that we could wipe out but have refrained from, or Iran, a similar threat. Is it “acceptance” that we’ve allowed the threat to exist and refuse to invade, or nonacceptance shown by sanctions, hostile diplomacy, covert sabotage, etc.? Seems slippery to me.
@AmberWavesofFlame a lawyerly response shows bad faith.
@RassBariaw go figure, I thought that was what you wanted with that JD comment so I tailored the following response accordingly. Regardless, I have now given you three explanations of my thoughts on the matter from different angles and have received nothing but lazy bait, so I’m done here.
@AmberWavesofFlame the question remains unanswered. A simple and direct answer to the question (rather than lawyerly evasion) would constructively move the discussion.