No amount of nuance will make your core position tenable to those that think Ukraine deserves outside (e.g. NATO) support to protect them from the Russian invaders. You simply don't think Ukraine deserves support, condemning them to genocide. Everything else you said is weird posturing to try and disguise your actual point. It's not our first rodeo, we can all see right through this.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think they should be condemned to genocide, but I don't think we should be sending them weapons. I think Biden should be talking to Putin in some capacity, which he is not. Radio silence. I think that exacerbates the war.

I don't think this weird moral imperative is real, like we're America so we ought to do something. I don't think that it's real because, just like in Russia, where you've got an active conflict and you've got some Russian propaganda calling for the denazification (what you've correctly referred to as genocidal) you also have, in Israel, active conflict of genocidal nature between Israel against Palestinians, but we do nothing.

So you're saying, we, America should condemn Palestine to genocide? Or how about the Uhygur peoples? Should we engage in a proxy war with China? Certainly, according to your claims that otherwise we are dooming them to genocide by their occupying country.

That moral imperative you're talking about is fabricated, because if the US government actually cared about these people -- Ukrainians, Palestinians, or Uhygur -- we'd be sending military aid to all of them, or else we'd be "condemning them to genocide," as you say.

This aid is not going to Ukraine to help them endure genocidal forces. It's going there to perpetuate our constant war economy that is reliant on conflict. It's going there to unite the political party against an outside evil and to further the US geopolitical and global free-market goals.

[–] pedalmore@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Classic, of course you follow with whattaboutism. Like I said, we've seen the Russian talking point already. Next.

Also the US isn't single handedly supporting Ukraine. You need to dramatically increase your whattaboutism to cover the other 50 or so countries.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Its just a lack of consistency, I don't know what to tell you. You can't tell me the US sends military aid to Ukraine in order to "defend democracy," when in numerous other cases of sovereign countries being occupied, we do nothing, or we even support the occupiers, in Palestine's case.

This lack of consistency lends itself to the idea that there are further interests besides "defending democracy" for which we send Ukraine weapons. I'm not sure how else to put it. If it were about the moral imperative of defending occupied people's, you can pick out numerous similar examples where we have not acted, and you just have to conclude that there are other factors behind the US sending aid to Ukraine. One is the perceived threat the country feels from Russia, which I think is probably exacerbated by the press. One is the perpetuation of the constant war economy we have, and one is the increased political unity that war brings.

But I'm curious about your position, you're dismissing my arguments as "whataboutism," but what exactly would you assert instead? Do you think that Ukraine deserves our aid more than Palestine does? Is it that Russia is a grave threat to the United States? I'm genuinely curious