"The 1980's are calling to ask for their foreign policy back."

That it is, in fact, genocide.

 

As your teacher, Mr. Spock is fond of saying, "I like to think that there are always possibilities." And while that sounds nice and all, it isn't really true. For example, there's simply no way that the American Revolution could have led to the end of slavery when the war was over. Too many people responsible for the war were pro-slavery. I suppose, if a few of the Founders, like Jefferson, had died during the war, things might have turned out differently, but without that happening, we were doomed to have slavery for generations afterward. The same is true of any other historical event, really. Unless one dramatically changes something (people involved, certain circumstances, etc.), then you're not going to get a radical change.

And? MLK, Jr. accomplished a lot with non-violence as well, but were it not for the violence of the Civil War (MLK, Jr. was old enough that he might have met Civil War veterans, he certainly would have known people who'd spoken to them, if he never met any.) this nation might never have progressed to the point where non-violence could make an impact. Not to mention, MLK, Jr was a pretty sophisticated guy who understood how to make things happen in ways that few people have.

And? Abigal Adams told her husband that if women weren't given the right to vote in the new American government that this nation would have problems.

You should read up on some of our Founding Fathers, even though we tend to mythologize them, a number of them had similar views.

What's Joyce say in "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" about the Irish being plagued by priests? Do you think an organization like the Catholic Church, that had no problem murdering children and burying them in unmarked graves (in addition to all the other horrors that they inflicted upon the population) was going to be okay with the idea of them being less powerful?

I suppose, it is possible that some form of home rule could have been worked out that kept the power of the Catholic Church in Ireland in check, after all, the Brits aren't exactly fond of Catholics. But what would the Catholic Church have done in response? Forgive me, I've read Joyce's works more times than I've read a detailed history on Ireland (I have a history of Ireland written in the late 1800s that's pretty fascinating, if insanely dense) and one scene, discussing efforts at independence has always stuck with me. Joyce's aunt has two hairbrushes with different color cloth backs, one is for one hero and the other is for Parnell. You know, the guy who was having a pretty go at things, until it was discovered that he had a side chick, and then he got the full condemnation of the Church, and that was pretty much it for him as a leader.

Now, again, I'm sure you've forgotten more about Irish history than I'll ever know, just I've forgotten more about American history than someone who wasn't born and raised here is likely to know. But given what I know about the Irish, at that point in time, anything that threatened the Catholic Church's hold on power would have been strangled in its crib. Perhaps I'm wrong.

And if the English had never decided to occupy Ireland, things would be better still. That's not what happened, though.

Not my point. I'm asking you to use your knowledge of things that happened in Ireland to infuse your understanding what's going on in Ukraine. Not agree with it, but to recognize what it's like to be in a horrific situation and desperate for a solution.

Because, again, and again, I cannot emphasize this enough: It is easy for us to pontificate on what the "correct" solution is, because we don't have bombs falling all around us. If we get it wrong, it doesn't change shit in our lives or the world. Even if we came up with a solution that was perfect, it wouldn't mean anything, because we have no way to enact it. That's what I'm not seeing from you, a recognition that our lives aren't at risk, so we're going to be thinking about this differently. Absolutely, there are times when a person who has an outside perspective on things can come up with a better solution than those who are directly involved, because you do sometimes need that distance to fully understand what's going on and come up with the best solution. Now, how do you convince those folks who have death raining down around their ears that they don't need the weapons they're asking for? Because that's what you need to be doing here.

Sure, I'll be happy to entertain the idea that there's other ways to solve this than give the Ukrainians cluster bombs, but I haven't seen any. Waving around a piece of paper that says such weapons are, or should be, illegal doesn't really cut it. I fucking hate guns. Absolutely hate them to the point where even though in my profession I could make more money working for a gun maker than what I do with my current employer, I'm not taking a job there. And, yes, it would be a dramatic pay increase for me. Not a few cents on the dollar, but tens of thousands of dollars in annual income. Don't care, I'm not making any more murder machines. But you know what? There are certain circumstances where not only will I happily use a gun, but I'll also live stream my ass doing it because if I wind up in prison for it, then I'm just exchanging one set of bars for another. Does that make me a bad person? I don't know, but if putting a bullet in the back of the head of any genocidal maniac is wrong, I don't want to be right. YMMV.

 

I'm not, in principle, against Turkiye joining the EU, but I don't think Erdogan's the right president for that to happen... and Orbán really doesn't need someone else to feed off of (and vice versa).

 

I would hope that at some point @Ancalagon would be reminded that Russia shouldn’t be our enemy. SurePutin is not to be trusted, but things shouldn’t be so simplified to good and evil. JFK reminded of that. Around the 15 minute mark.

Something my ex. Wife would never let me forget

 

One of the definitions of genocide is the forcible removal of children from an ethnic group, per the UN.

Russia admits to repopulating 700,000 Ukrainian children to Russia. They are literally stealing their children en masse and raising them as Russians.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...ukraine-conflict-zones-now-russia-2023-07-03/

So yeah, I'm going to call it what it is - a fucking genocide.

If Putin got his way the land of Ukraine would all belong to Russia, the children of Ukraine would be raised by Russians in Russia, and millions of Ukrainians who opposed that would be dead.

This being the 2nd attempt at genocide of Ukraine - the first being the Holodomor, and I have family that fled that in the 30s to settle in the West.

 

The one thing I want to say with Ukraine's side of the cluster bomb argument it is that it is real awesome for us to argue way back from their land about what they are wrong for using when you consider the moral problems of the weapons are so much worse with the russians bombing them. It is war, and the Ukranians would love to be doing anything but being at war and having to fight for their lands against this WTF offensive against them. None of them asked for this. None of them wanted this.

If they need this weapon to dig those russian assholes out of their dug in bunkers then fucking give it to them. It is either that or let them be cleansed of their military and freedoms by the russians. The way to stop the cluster bombs from polluting the land any more than they already have with future death if for Ukraine to surrender immediately and the world helps the russians clean up their new territory. Since Russia will not stop using them then Ukraine needs to win so that we can worry about the horror of cleaning up the battlefield. If Ukraine needs the ammo to fight Russia to defeat and peace, and these weapons are not nukes which will destroy the rest of the world, then give it to them and let them use them.

I also say count every weapon and ask for some sort of recording of their use so we can clean up, and after the war is over they can destroy what is left and produce more stocks of preferrable weapons.

These people are fighting an immoral war against the perpetrators of immorality. don't handicap them to death in this way. Give the cluster bombs to them and bomb those russians out of their holes. Push them back and terrorize their troops until the flee the battlefield on Ukranian land and return to russia to remove their corrupt commanders for this horrible decision. It is not our land and our lives that is being polluted or bled out. If you do not want to make new bombs don't, but give them the ones we have to be disposed of against the russian army who should be turning on Putin and their commanders for forcing such a pathetic aggression on them.

 

Nope. EU has rejected that condition.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...and-nato-membership-are-two-separate-processe

 

@RickDeckard I get it. I don't want the cluster bomb horror to be there in Ukraine. I do not want it to be there for Russian civilians. If I could drop dead the commanders of the russian army this moment by the power of my own blood and pain I would tear my flesh from my bones with a dull rusty spoon. It is not that easy, and I wish it was. Instead we have to deal with the reality the russians are dumping their shit munitions into Ukraine, which means these duds are already there, and the more you let the russians infiltratye Ukraine, the more they will manufacture half ass cluster bombs and spread these munitions across Ukraine.

There are only two ways to stop the civilian casualties from this pollution. The first is a unilateral surrender by Ukraine and whatever executions of military and civilians that means to stop the russians from having to use any more of their cluster bombs which are terrible.

The second option is to push the russians back out of territory as quick as possible so less of these duds are left around to be cleaned up or harm people when they explode. If the russians are dug in and the US bombs leave considerably less future problems while being a good way to dig them out of their holes, then do it and win as fast as you can to drive the russians back to their territory and hopefully break them and end the fighting while polluting the land the least because you removed the russian ability to keep on polluting the land with their horrible shit cluster bombs.

It is sort of the same idea that if you could somehow use a few nukes to EMP over russia and knock out their ability to launch their nukes before they could do it (Yes I know that is an old and not possible plan anymore) you would actually be right to explode a few nukes to stop everything from going nuclear even though it would cause nuclear pollution and electronic destruction.

I get that it is horrible. I am frustrated beyond belief with my heart bleeding for the victims of this war on both sides. I know kids will be blowing up for decades after this war is done because of these weapons. However, the problem is already there. Putin and his army are not going away.

The best solution IMO that I have rationalized above is we give them the weapons, they do their best to record their usage so we know where the danger areas are. When it is done we do our best to clean up and develop technology to clean up these horrors. My thought is we force the MIC to do research and development on those technologies while we also tax the fuck out of their corporate gains to fund the cleanup. I also think if we defeat Russia we could help rebuild both Russia and Ukraine offering up jobs and opportunities that would create a demand for workers and lift many economies with some social improvements.

For right now we have to beat the bad guy and cluster bombs are not the end of the world. We are better at cleaning this shit up than we were, and we will get better. We have to stop the wars and the need to use these things.

 

I agree. They shouldn't.

Russia seems to have some difficulty with the concept though.

 

NATO and Japan to release joint cooperation initiative.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/...security-cooperation-document-pm-kishida.html

 

You're going to have to join the dots a bit better than than. Is your implication that those people are being murdered? I haven't seen anything to suggest that. Forced resettlement is ethnic cleansing, not genocide. Eastern Ukraine has a substantial population identifying as Russian, seeking to flee the war and the numbers in the link provided by Demiurge (although the commentary he provided is typically dishonest) suggest that most (but not all) being moved are in that category.

Everyone using the phrase knows that the term 'genocide' conjures up images of the holocaust and similar crimes. I put it to you that that's the reason it's being used here.

 

You're still not a good person, and playing ignorant doesn't make you any better. Let's see what the UN has to say, shall we?

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

I'll concede the reverse of what you have that I probably know less about it than you do - but from what I do know, you're right on that point and there would have been more chance of an early abolition of slavery if the revolution hadn't happened (or had failed). But I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on here. The revolution was justified anyway and we don't live in an ideal world. Your initial contention appeared to suggest that I would find a restriction on Irish revolutionary violence to be less palatable than restrictions I'm advocating on Ukraine. That's not the case. To put it more bluntly (and I'll admit that my views on this have evolved over time) the results of such violence had negative effects on my country and it would probably have been better if it most of it hadn't happened.

Snipping this, but the point is that in Irish history (again, of limited applicability to Ukraine - but you brought it up) non-violence has often achieved more and the crude formulation of "national independence" is not always aligned with better lives for people.

I think that the Catholic Church grew in power from the 1920s because of the architecture of the new state that was created. Schools, much of healthcare and most social services were essentially outsourced to them, and poverty was worsened. So it's not that they would need to settle for being "less powerful". There just needed to continue being at least some check on their power.
But yeah, they destroyed Parnell so it's not like they didn't have substantial power before then either. That's a particular national tragedy because he was exactly the sort of figure we needed.

Most of that is obviously true. As I stated in my other post, I'd question if you and others are applying it to other conflicts, and you need to question your motives if you are not. If this conflict was not front and centre on all of your media and if your government was not heavily invested in it, I think you would not care so much. So I don't think you're showing any more genuine empathy with the Ukranian cause than I am.
But there's also a harsh truth here - that what Ukranians (or more accurately their government) want or need is not synonymous with what they should have. For one thing, given their situation their tolerance for the risks involved with general nuclear war are likely to be much higher than those of anyone else. For another, banned weapons are banned for good reason and if military expediency were to be an acceptable reason to deviate from that, there would be no point in banning them in the first place (yeah, I know - the countries involved aren't party to the treaty). And again I repeat, where does the "whatever it takes" slippery slope go next, given that there is no sign of any breakthrough? As in the above examples on alternate US or Irish history, reality is stubborn and it is not always possible to achieve the ends we want.

 

You would like to incinerate thousands of children with firebombs. Pipe down.

 

Remember when Putin revoked the Russian ratification of the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Convention against War Crimes in 2019?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-protocol-on-war-crimes-victims-idUSKBN1WW2IN

What did that include?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I

• Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technologies whose scope of destruction cannot be limited.[13] A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
• Articles 56 and 53 outlaw attacks on dams, dikes, nuclear electrical-generating stations, and places of worship. The first three are "works and installations containing dangerous forces" and may be attacked only in ways that do not threaten to release the dangerous forces (i.e., it is permissible to capture them but not to destroy them).
• Articles 76 and 77, 15 and 79 provide special protections for women, children, and civilian medical personnel, and provide measures of protection for journalists.

Geez, I wonder why a homicidal despot would do that?

 

Again with the oversimplifications. Sad.

Congratulations on ignoring the UNs definition of genocide, though. That's exactly what someone with the moral high ground would do. Just like how you're more outraged over online comments made regarding hypothetical and highly implausible future violence than you are about the actual genocide that's occuring today.

 

There is no other possible way to read the following remark (which some others to their shame pos-repped). Feel free to retract, particularly in light of your supposed wrangling with your conscience in advocating the use of cluster bombs.

"You know how near the end of WWII Germany and Japan were brutally firebombed, and a bunch of civilians were killed, and the rest of the world was basically "too fuckin' bad, this is what you get for not overthrowing your leaders before they ordered all the atrocities and your families happily carried them out?"

I feel like we're quickly approaching that point with Russia, if we haven't already gone past it."

I'm not ignoring it. You posted it 21 minutes ago. You're not at the top of my list.

 

More demands for performative condemnation and posturing. Genocide or otherwise, we literally all agree that the Russian invasion and other actions are heinous (yes, even moreso than your odious but impotent remarks).
What is the point in repeating or demanding we repeat our outrage in an echo chamber? To enforce some sort of message discipline?

 

Your priorities here are fascinating.

 

Now, if we're going by United Nations definitions of genocide, the only thing to say is that the United Nations themselves have said that Russian actions do not meet them.

Link

 

And as if to demonstrate the point - behold the price of Swedish admission to NATO. The Kurds go under the bus yet again.



Anyone overly exercised about that, demanding that they get whatever weapons they ask for, or following up the many allegations of genocide against Turkey...?

 

Link doesn’t work for me.

 

Apologies.

https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/16...-no-genocide-the-uns-latest-report-on-ukraine

 

It's straight up hypocrisy. It's easier to just call people stupid or nut jobs.

 

I need this.

 

Not pro-genocide just anti-anti-genocide.

 

Like were they using them to target humanitarian aid stations like they did yesterday?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...strikes-zaporizhzhia-town-ukraine-2023-07-10/

Because context does matter.

 

The UN Commission on Human Rights Violations in Ukraine are a subbody of the UN Human Rights Council.

The Chair of the UN Rights Council is Vaclav Balek - a Russian.

And since this statement the Russian government has openly stated it has removed 700,000 Ukrainian children to Russia.

 

Vaclav Balek is Czech. Russia were suspended from the UNHCR last year in response to the Bucha Massacre.