Generational Dynamics World View News

[JDav]

Thank you. That was the original point I was trying to make - wars of conquest are as old as man himself, and they continue to this day. Why are we so intent on Ukraine when it is happening in dozens of places across the globe? How about if we let the Russia/Ukraine conflict play itself out and let bygones be bygones, rather than sending $65 billion so far and counting over there, with US Democrats demanding that the IMF send another 2/3 of a TRILLION dollars? What is so important to them over there? Inquiring minds want to know.

If the argument for getting involved in the war is that Putin is committing atrocious acts against the people of Ukraine, I just want to see a little consistency in the application of that reasoning throughout all the global conflicts, but I don't.

As to your comment about demonic human sacrifices, they continue to this day in this country. See the previous discussion on abortion. No point in rehashing it here.

This has been asked and answered already so I don't know what point you're trying to make. It certainly sounds, though I could be wrong, that you're yet another suggesting we leave Ukraine to be conquered by Russia because... whatever. You make no real reason so not support the country being brutally attacked by another other than to bring up historical atrocities that have no bearing in the current situation. If you could point to another situation where there was a country suffering invasion and the US et al. shrugged and did nothing your argument might have some bearing. But you don't do so and instead engage in a long line of logical fallacies apparently to suggest that Ukraine should be hung out to survive or not on its own.

I don't see this as much different that the Putin supporters who infect so many sites these days.

I think with Ukraine we are being manipulated into WW3, where the carnage will be far worse than it is now. And I believe it is being done solely so that certain people can profit, but you don't want to acknowledge that possibility.

There are conflicts all over the world, internal and external. For most of them, we do nothing. China is constantly encroaching on/annexing land from other countries. We do nothing. Russia didn't invade Syria, but without its help Assad would have failed in his attempts at genocide. And they DID participate in that genocide. We did next to nothing. The Rohingya genocide? Nothing. Uighers? Nothing. Do those lives not matter because it wasn't an "external invasion"? We should either be all in or all out. The hypocrisy of our foreign policy screams of corruption.

If Russia is your issue, look at Syria (and Ukraine 8 years ago). If humanitarianism is your issue, look everywhere else. But you have a single-minded focus on Ukraine, now. I don't see this as much different than a) someone who is a Democrat party/George Soros shill, or b) someone who has a lot invested in defense stocks, and this is good for his portfolio.

[Xeraphim1]

I think with Ukraine we are being manipulated into WW3, where the carnage will be far worse than it is now. And I believe it is being done solely so that certain people can profit, but you don't want to acknowledge that possibility.

There are conflicts all over the world, internal and external. For most of them, we do nothing. China is constantly encroaching on/annexing land from other countries. We do nothing. Russia didn't invade Syria, but without its help Assad would have failed in his attempts at genocide. And they DID participate in that genocide. We did next to nothing. The Rohingya genocide? Nothing. Uighers? Nothing. Do those lives not matter because it wasn't an "external invasion"? We should either be all in or all out. The hypocrisy of our foreign policy screams of corruption.

If Russia is your issue, look at Syria (and Ukraine 8 years ago). If humanitarianism is your issue, look everywhere else. But you have a single-minded focus on Ukraine, now. I don't see this as much different than a) someone who is a Democrat party/George Soros shill, or b) someone who has a lot invested in defense stocks, and this is good for his portfolio.

And you still haven't given any reasons other than a "feeling". You also don't respond to other posts where people have listed why supporting Ukraine is a good idea. And you give no real roadmap to a WWIII. Support your points or you're just being a waste of space.

And yet again you're going with a logical fallacy; that if we taken the same action in other situations then we're being hypocritical. Let me point out the big difference since it seems you have some willful blindness: Most of the situations you list were internal actions/civil wars where no external actor was involved. Ukraine was invaded by another state. Do you see the difference? Do you need words of fewer syllables?

I don't have a single minded focus on Ukraine which you would know if you had actually asked me rather than trying to put words in my mouth.And nice job trying to turn my own comment against me. However, I don't fit the argument you're trying to make whereas you fit mine very well. It it walks like a suck, quacks like a duck...

Why don't you try again uising facts and actual arguments rather than rhetorical trickery?

[JDav]

And you still haven't given any reasons other than a "feeling". You also don't respond to other posts where people have listed why supporting Ukraine is a good idea. And you give no real roadmap to a WWIII. Support your points or you're just being a waste of space.

And yet again you're going with a logical fallacy; that if we taken the same action in other situations then we're being hypocritical. Let me point out the big difference since it seems you have some willful blindness: Most of the situations you list were internal actions/civil wars where no external actor was involved. Ukraine was invaded by another state. Do you see the difference? Do you need words of fewer syllables?

I don't have a single minded focus on Ukraine which you would know if you had actually asked me rather than trying to put words in my mouth.And nice job trying to turn my own comment against me. However, I don't fit the argument you're trying to make whereas you fit mine very well. It it walks like a suck, quacks like a duck...

Why don't you try again uising facts and actual arguments rather than rhetorical trickery?
[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_o ... _conflicts

Over 60 ongoing armed conflicts currently throughout the world - most internal, but many external. And Wikipedia won't even mention China. Borders are not permanent, nor will they ever be. In Ukraine I believe that it's a) not our fight; b) I question US leaders motives for being there, and c) it's a serious thing, spiritually, to be involved in the taking of life. My view on that is consistent with my views on abortion and the death penalty. The decision for our country to aid in the killing going on over there is one not to be taken lightly, and one for which there has been no real debate. Therefore, I don't think we're justified in getting involved at the moment.

I'm just expressing my opinions and the reasons for them. It seems that your response has largely been ridicule, condescension, insults, and name-calling, rather than respectful disagreement. That may be a way to score debate points, but it won't convince people as to the validity of your position.

The only reason I got involved in this discussion in the first place was because I got tired of you calling everyone who disagreed with you a Russian troll. I find that very annoying...

[Xeraphim1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_o ... _conflicts

Over 60 ongoing armed conflicts currently throughout the world - most internal, but many external. And Wikipedia won't even mention China. Borders are not permanent, nor will they ever be. In Ukraine I believe that it's a) not our fight; b) I question US leaders motives for being there, and c) it's a serious thing, spiritually, to be involved in the taking of life. My view on that is consistent with my views on abortion and the death penalty. The decision for our country to aid in the killing going on over there is one not to be taken lightly, and one for which there has been no real debate. Therefore, I don't think we're justified in getting involved at the moment.

I'm just expressing my opinions and the reasons for them. It seems that your response has largely been ridicule, condescension, insults, and name-calling, rather than respectful disagreement. That may be a way to score debate points, but it won't convince people as to the validity of your position.

The only reason I got involved in this discussion in the first place was because I got tired of you calling everyone who disagreed with you a Russian troll. I find that very annoying...

A. No US forces are fighting. Fail.

B. You can question all you want, but so far you have raised anything other than what-ifs and conspiracy fodder. You have to do better. Fail.

C. Christianity is very clear that people are allowed to defend themselves from the violence of others. People are also allowed to help others defend themselves. Now if the US was to send weapons to a state engaged in the conquest of another you might have a point. Fail

So far your points have been mostly logical fallacies or devoid of actual content. Yes, you're quite clever at it but I've seen it all before. It's also a typical tactics to accuse me of EXACTLY you've been engaged in.

I don't call everyone trolls. I do point out when people are using the EXACT SAME tactics and "arguments" as Russian trolls. Once again, it it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, most likely it's a duck. In terms of Cool Breeze, he might as well be reading right out of Sputnik or RT.

[JDav]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_o ... _conflicts

Over 60 ongoing armed conflicts currently throughout the world - most internal, but many external. And Wikipedia won't even mention China. Borders are not permanent, nor will they ever be. In Ukraine I believe that it's a) not our fight; b) I question US leaders motives for being there, and c) it's a serious thing, spiritually, to be involved in the taking of life. My view on that is consistent with my views on abortion and the death penalty. The decision for our country to aid in the killing going on over there is one not to be taken lightly, and one for which there has been no real debate. Therefore, I don't think we're justified in getting involved at the moment.

I'm just expressing my opinions and the reasons for them. It seems that your response has largely been ridicule, condescension, insults, and name-calling, rather than respectful disagreement. That may be a way to score debate points, but it won't convince people as to the validity of your position.

The only reason I got involved in this discussion in the first place was because I got tired of you calling everyone who disagreed with you a Russian troll. I find that very annoying...

A. No US forces are fighting. Fail. Yet, we send weapons systems and trainers to Ukraine but not other places. Why?

B. You can question all you want, but so far you have raised anything other than what-ifs and conspiracy fodder. You have to do better. Fail. I see the news, and I see that actions were taken unilaterally and quickly, without debate or discussion. That makes me suspicious. I don't see anything wrong with being suspicious. Do you gladly accept everything our government and media tell us without question?

C. Christianity is very clear that people are allowed to defend themselves from the violence of others. People are also allowed to help others defend themselves. Now if the US was to send weapons to a state engaged in the conquest of another you might have a point. Fail. It certainly does allow for that, yet we're not doing it anywhere but Ukraine. Again, why?

So far your points have been mostly logical fallacies or devoid of actual content. Yes, you're quite clever at it but I've seen it all before. It's also a typical tactics to accuse me of EXACTLY you've been engaged in.

I don't call everyone trolls. I do point out when people are using the EXACT SAME tactics and "arguments" as Russian trolls. Once again, it it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, most likely it's a duck. In terms of Cool Breeze, he might as well be reading right out of Sputnik or RT.

I understand completely why some people think we should go in there and risk starting WW3, I just don't agree with it. Is there any argument in opposition that you would agree with, or at least understand? It doesn't seem so. It's very difficult to deal with people who are not capable of seeing any side of things but their own.

[Tom Mazanec]

If it were up to me (thank God it is not!) I would try to help all victims of war, internal and external.
But that is a personal prudential judgement, and I can see the other side.

[Tom Mazanec]

Strikes on Civilians Deep in Ukraine Show Russia’s Lethal Reach
July 14, 2022in News
https://dnyuz.com/2022/07/14/strikes-on ... hal-reach/

Belarus Weekly: Russia increases presence in Belarusian airspace as Lukashenko cedes control of one of its air bases to Moscow
July 15, 2022 2:29 pm
by Maria Yeryoma
https://kyivindependent.com/regional/be ... -to-moscow

M270 MLR systems arrive in Ukraine - Reznikov15.07.2022 20:40
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/35 ... nikov.html

[Xeraphim1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_o ... _conflicts

Over 60 ongoing armed conflicts currently throughout the world - most internal, but many external. And Wikipedia won't even mention China. Borders are not permanent, nor will they ever be. In Ukraine I believe that it's a) not our fight; b) I question US leaders motives for being there, and c) it's a serious thing, spiritually, to be involved in the taking of life. My view on that is consistent with my views on abortion and the death penalty. The decision for our country to aid in the killing going on over there is one not to be taken lightly, and one for which there has been no real debate. Therefore, I don't think we're justified in getting involved at the moment.

I'm just expressing my opinions and the reasons for them. It seems that your response has largely been ridicule, condescension, insults, and name-calling, rather than respectful disagreement. That may be a way to score debate points, but it won't convince people as to the validity of your position.

The only reason I got involved in this discussion in the first place was because I got tired of you calling everyone who disagreed with you a Russian troll. I find that very annoying...

A. No US forces are fighting. Fail. Yet, we send weapons systems and trainers to Ukraine but not other places. Why?

B. You can question all you want, but so far you have raised anything other than what-ifs and conspiracy fodder. You have to do better. Fail. I see the news, and I see that actions were taken unilaterally and quickly, without debate or discussion. That makes me suspicious. I don't see anything wrong with being suspicious. Do you gladly accept everything our government and media tell us without question?

C. Christianity is very clear that people are allowed to defend themselves from the violence of others. People are also allowed to help others defend themselves. Now if the US was to send weapons to a state engaged in the conquest of another you might have a point. Fail. It certainly does allow for that, yet we're not doing it anywhere but Ukraine. Again, why?

So far your points have been mostly logical fallacies or devoid of actual content. Yes, you're quite clever at it but I've seen it all before. It's also a typical tactics to accuse me of EXACTLY you've been engaged in.

I don't call everyone trolls. I do point out when people are using the EXACT SAME tactics and "arguments" as Russian trolls. Once again, it it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, most likely it's a duck. In terms of Cool Breeze, he might as well be reading right out of Sputnik or RT.

I understand completely why some people think we should go in there and risk starting WW3, I just don't agree with it. Is there any argument in opposition that you would agree with, or at least understand? It doesn't seem so. It's very difficult to deal with people who are not capable of seeing any side of things but their own.

A. From the Wikipedia list you cite:

Major wars (10,000 or more combat related deaths: the US had a major role in Afghanistan and a minor one in Yemen. It did not have a role in Myanmar or Tigray which are civil wars.

Wars (1,000–9,999 combat-related deaths:

The US does have a role in Mexico; Niger/Burkino Faso; Nigeria; Syria; Somalia; Iraq; Columbia. Note that just about all of these are civil wars of Islamic terrorism.

The only one that is an invasion is Ukraine. Do you see the difference here?

B. Once again you aren't giving any specifics. Saying your suspicious of the US government doesn't give anything to point to.

C. False. The US provides weapons to many states engaged in conflict (look at (A)).

D. No you don't call people trolls but you do use the exact same tactics and talking points as the Russian trolls out there. Note that I have not called you a troll.

You keep talking about starting WW III. There will be such a war only if another state starts it. The US is not attacking Russia and has even limited or not transferred certain weapons due to a desire to not "escalate" matters. Once again, there would be no war in Ukraine if Russia stopped attacking Ukraine. This is entirely on Russia's shoulders and in any expansion it has the most to lose. As has been demonstrated, Russian weapons don't work all that well and Russian soldiers don't fight very well. I honestly don't think there is much risk. The real risk is with China and Russia is just a distraction. If it loses the ability to bully its neighbors and ceases to be a problem for the next 10+ years and the only cost to the US is buying weapons to give to Ukraine, I think its a bargain.

[Xeraphim1]

If it were up to me (thank God it is not!) I would try to help all victims of war, internal and external.
But that is a personal prudential judgement, and I can see the other side.

The US has spent much of the past 70 years trying to do that; stomping on small fires before they become big ones. I believe it has greatly reduced the number of deaths which would otherwise have occurred and aided in bringing prosperity to people who otherwise would have stayed in poverty. But, it's come at a huge price to the US and the citizenry is less enthused about continuing to pay that price. The question is who will step up to take over that role, or even just parts of it. Europe? France has been active in Mali but just got kicked out and was getting tired of it anyways. The UK will help when others take the lead, but doesn't drive anything any more. The other countries tend to not be interested in anything outside their immediate neighborhood. India is trying to project some force in the South Asia region, but is always concerned about Pakistan and China. South America can't take care of itself. Africa (with a couple of exceptions) is a hellhole. Japan and South Korea will grudging support some efforts but are also concerned about their immediate neighborhood. China is a long term threat to most of its neighbors. Russia is an even bigger threat since unlike China, it has actively invaded its neighbors multiple times.

I personally would prefer that we have no need for a military since the resources could be used for other things. But that isn't the world we live in. I tend to not support getting involved in civil wars because it rarely works out well. I do think the US should support countries who are fighting aggression against them. We spend a lot of money supporting Japan and South Korea which HAS worked well since they are doing most of the heavy lifting. I also think Ukraine falls into that category since they're mostly asking for stuff to help them fight an invader.

[JDav]

But that is a personal prudential judgement, and I can see the other side.

Thank you, Tom. The ability and willingness to try to understand other viewpoints is a precious gift. Imagine all the friendships, family relationships, and even marriages that disintegrate because one or both people are unwilling/unable to do that. Empathy is a uniquely human trait. I pray that everyone who has been following this thread has taken time to reflect on the various arguments and examine their own beliefs and biases. We can't and won't learn anything if we don't take the time to do that.

If we can't reasonably and civilly share opinions on an anonymous board like this, where (unless we're secretly high-level political or military personnel) our opinions don't amount to a hill of beans, how can we manage to do it in our emotionally charged personal relationships?