Bakhmut about to fall.

a reply to: Cutepants

And even if Ukraine was a money-laundering hub, how is this war supposed to fix that? How will the war put an end to woke propaganda?

I didn't say it would fix anything. War rarely does fix anything. I am not making excuses for either side; I am suggesting that there may have been a way out of an open conflict if we had only been willing to take it.

I am not a fan of either side. I'm in Alabama. My concern is the USA is using this as a proxy war against Russia, and we are liable to incur a little of that wrath ourselves.

You're being a hypocrite right now and I don't know if you realize that. On the one hand you wonder if a war can ever be right, then just a few posts later you start listing a bunch of justifications for this war.

And you're still trying to put me in that box. I don't fit! Give it up!

Even if we don't incur any of the wrath I mentioned, this conflict is destroying the US economy, all because a country behaving badly that our politicians like got invaded by a country behaving badly that our politicians don't like, and now those same politicians don't want to even talk about what really caused the invasion. The USA even egged it on over that Nord Stream 2 pipeline! People are dying wholesale over there and what do we do? "Support the war!"

I will not support mass death and destruction of an economy over some rich politician wanting to get richer. I will not take sides in this conflict. Anyone who tries to force me to do so will get an earful. Leave me out of your binary perspective.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

let's not live in the past?

Read my signature: "One should only remove the past if one wishes to re-live it." Do you wish to relive all the mistakes of the past? Do you want more war?

If a war comes to your doorstep, I would bet dollars to doughnuts you would change that view. Assuming you have time before you are one of those smoldering corpses, that is.

You have no idea what war is, or what diplomacy is. I only pray you never do know what war is. It's not just a bad news report when one is in the middle of it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

What in the name of Robert E. Lee's grilled cheese sandwich was that?

Try putting those little symbols together into words and sentences and try again. I can't understand what it is you're trying to say.

ETA: OK, saw the edit. It happens. Seriously, try again.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not trying to change your mind about this war, right now at least. I don't think it's worth either of our time. But it sounds like you're using this vague pacifist philosophy to argue that everyone is bad, starting a war is as bad as not ending a war, provoking a war is just as bad as starting it, defending is as bad as attacking. I believe there's right and wrong, I'm just not a post-modernist I guess.

This thread isn’t about morality, reasoning or justification of war. The thread is about the Battle for Bakhmut. Plenty of other threads to suckle at the tit of Zelenskyy and demonise Putin.

a reply to: Grenade

Clearly the moderators disagree with you, what can I say. Not really my business.

a reply to: Cutepants

I don't think it's worth either of our time.

I think our response is worth our time. One cannot separate the USA from Ukraine in this conflict now. They are using our weapons, spending our treasure, and that means they are likely taking orders from us.

I have to admit... that's a new one! I have never been called a "pacifist" before... "war-monger," check. "Nazi," check. "Loose cannon," check. "Danger to society," check. "Trigger-happy, semi-sane redneck," check. Never a pacifist.

everyone is bad

Everyone does bad things. Some more than others.

starting a war is as bad as not ending a war

Both perpetuate war, do they not?

provoking a war is just as bad as starting it

Provoking a war is starting a war. People tend to defend themselves, sometimes proactively, when provoked.

defending is as bad as attacking

No, that is not anything I said or insinuated. Everyone has the right, I would say the duty, to defend themselves. I do not blame Ukraine for trying to defend themselves.

But self-defense implies and requires innocence. If someone starts a fight, they cannot then turn around and escalate it, claiming self-defense.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Cutepants

Actually, i think Redneck has made that point several times but no-one is listening.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you aren't a pacifist? I'm not a hippy liberal or whatever by the way, I believe in strong military. I mean people think I'm a liberal a lot on this site for some reason.

But self-defense implies and requires innocence. If someone starts a fight, they cannot then turn around and escalate it, claiming self-defense.

Even if Ukraine was led by Hitler, I'd say say Russia is to blame for this war. Because it's not just the leaders fighting. The whole populations of Russia and Ukraine have gotten dragged into this and are suffering. So to me it doesn't matter that much which government is originally to blame. The actions of the one do not absolve the other of future responsibility.

a reply to: Grenade

Where did that happen?

a reply to: Grenade

What you are witnessing, first-hand, and the reason you don't see me active in many of these Russia/Ukraine threads. Reasonable discourse, like that we had for a few posts (and thank you again for the information), will prevent the official narrative from being accepted among the bulk of the population. These kinds of disruptions are a very effective way to shift the focus of anyone reading away from the actual subject and into a free-form discussion of those points that can be accepted by the population.

It usually starts off with insults, sometimes veiled, sometimes overt. The insulted then replies, as otherwise it appears the insult is valid. Every insult from then on is designed to drift farther off the subject that is damaging to the narrative and toward one which is not damaging, or which can be spun acceptably.

It is a very effective technique that really cannot be easily countered except by self-imposed silence, itself being a surrender to the narrative. It is also a certain indicator that there is, indeed, a narrative being presented to the public that is inherently either untrue or at the least greatly embellished. I picked up on it when people who questioned the stories out of Ukraine were being called Putin sympathizers.

The only way to get to the truth is to destroy the narrative.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What would be the point?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I hear you mate. I just don't know why people need to come to our little corner of the internet with the BS. It's not like ATS has any real influence on the public mind. Surely these cretins would be better served and more effective sticking to the more popular discussion forums and social media.

They're destroying the very foundations of this website.

a reply to: Grenade

"Cretins"? And you get all huffed up when you perceive you are being insulted?

Like I said, what's the point?

a reply to: Cutepants

Even if Ukraine was led by Hitler, I'd say say Russia is to blame for this war. Because it's not just the leaders fighting. The whole populations of Russia and Ukraine have gotten dragged into this and are suffering. So to me it doesn't matter that much which government is originally to blame. The actions of the one do not absolve the other of future responsibility.

So many inconsistencies here...

• Germany under Hitler was invaded. So was Hitler in the right as soon as his borders were invaded? Every war involves the breach of someone's border... sometimes justified, but more often not.
  
  
• The leaders never have fought the wars. It's always the citizenry that fights. That's what war is.
  
  
• Who is to blame does not matter to those who are fine with the war continuing. That information only matters to those who want to end the fighting. If diplomacy is never used, the fighting will continue until one of the fighting countries is destroyed, or at least until neither country has the ability to fight any more. That's what happens, and that is what will happen this time. For there to ever be a diplomatic solution, the issues that led to the invasion(s) must be addressed. There is no other way to end a war.
  
  
• No actions by either side are ever absolved by the other. But they have to be addressed. The very fact that one country invaded another means that country had a reason to do so. It was no accident; they purposely invaded. That reason may be reasonable, or it may not be... but we will never know unless we ask what those reasons were. We have not asked Putin what his reasons were; we have tried to tell him why he invaded Ukraine. That's not how it works.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm just saying you put a lot of emphasis on avoiding war. And that's pacifist in my opinion. But I don't think it's an insult.

a reply to: Grenade

Just because our audience is small, it does not follow that it is insignificant. There are many, many, many holes in the official narrative concerning Ukraine, and the whole thing will fall apart with only a few speakers of truth. In such a situation, even the small dissentions must be quashed.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

People here to push a narrative through disruption of reasonable discussion deserve that moniker. Not my problem that you identify with that demographic, although it is telling with regard your motives that you took it personally.

a reply to: Cutepants

I'm just saying you put a lot of emphasis on avoiding war. And that's pacifist in my opinion. But I don't think it's an insult.

That's fair enough.

I do oppose war in all but the most extreme circumstances. I'll admit that. I don't support total capitulation or surrender; I support diplomatic talks and attempts to reach actual compromise.

I fear this conflict has now gone too far for too long for that to be effective... but I will not abandon my principles either.

TheRedneck