advertisement


Ukraine V

Aha! Another opportunity found to suggest that the US, among all nations, is especially bad! This from the person who condemns any suggestion that any Russian 'national' character tendencies exist as racism!
The Great Satan is the source of all known evil. Surely you know that.
 
Consider that 'joy riding,' however offensive if one identifies with the feeling of the victim, is actually a good description of the feelings and motivations of a certain class of perpetrator. From that point-of-view, the term is not an euphemism at all, it's an apt reflection of reality. Of course, if the term is wrongly applied to the activities of professional car thieves, then it becomes an euphemism. By the same token, 'ethnic cleansing' is an accurate description of the motives of many who support such policies. They indeed, however wrongly, view certain others as 'pollutants' in 'their' populace. Funny attitudes about 'cleanliness,' for example, the conviction that members of a disfavored group are dirty and diseased, along with heightened revulsion reactions to the possibility of dirt and germs in the actual environment, are a feature of the mindset of many bigoted persons. Propagandists exploit this by linking hate targets to disease and vermin.

If one is a defence lawyer one can easily see why this deceptive language is useful. But deceptive it remains, and actually it is dissembling in reality. Glossing something illegal with a soft view of the perpetrator ... Politicians, lawyers and propaganda ministries love dissembling like this if it helps those without critical thinking skills accept the message, prima face.

George
 
Oh I see. SMO means people who think there is a moral case for only considering the use of euphemisms to excuse civilian death and destruction when it comes from one side.
You see what you see - and you’re welcome to it.
 
IMHO, too many posts on this thread are being made simply to provoke a reaction.

Can anyone show me where someone here has argued that the US invasion of Iraq was a good thing? Closest to that I’ve heard was that Saddam was evil, and that most Iraqis should be better off without him. But it is obvious to all by now that destroying Saddam’s military led to chaos, the rise of ISIS, and so on. Have not heard anyone here argue retrospectively that it was a success. It was clearly a failure on many levels. Hundreds of thousands died because of it, and US soldiers/contractors committed war crimes. These are indisputable facts.

That said, does anyone here think, given the horrible track record, that the US should not have provided military aid to Ukraine? Is anyone arguing that it should all stop now? Is anyone here arguing that a GOP-led, isolationist US would be somehow better for the world? Funny, but I haven’t heard anyone here arguing for any of that. Possible that’s what some here believe, but I haven’t seen any posts actually saying it out loud.

If someone would like to criticize what the US is doing for Ukraine today, I’m all ears. But what has constantly returning to Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Vietnam actually contributed to the conversation? I am not saying shut up, don’t do it. Feel free to try and continue provoking reactions. Most will ignore, but some will probably take the bait. But it would be really nice if every once in a while, those making references to the past would explain how, specifically, they inform the discussion of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and what different path they suggest we should take. Otherwise, it all comes across as knee-jerk whataboutism. So again, I ask, what exactly would you like see the US change in terms of today’s support of Ukraine?

To my mind, the really big issue is whether or not the military aid continues after the 2024 election. If the GOP wins back the Presidency, what will happen in Ukraine? What will happen to NATO? Will Western Europe ramp up their military support, or will they abandon Ukraine? I don’t know, but I can think of at least one little Russian despot who is betting on the latter.
 
Did you miss the articles this weekend celebrating the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and the peace and prosperity it brought to the region?
One should pause to consider Iraq continuously under Saddam and after his passing under his nice sons all the way to today.

I am pretty sure you would be mum on the numerous attrocities committed by them in the last 20 years. After all this would be native attrocities - nothing European intellectuals historically cared about.
 
One should pause to consider Iraq continuously under Saddam and after his passing under his nice sons all the way to today.

I am pretty sure you would be mum on the numerous attrocities committed by them in the last 20 years. After all this would be native attrocities - nothing European intellectuals historically cared about.
The choices were not binary. Containment of Saddam was also an option.
 
The choices were not binary. Containment of Saddam was also an option.
Sure, but that never stopped him from mass atrocities against his own population before. His sons, by all reports raised to be fine torturers and rapists, would have been a fitting and natural follow up.

Morality of nation's actions and historical outcomes are very loosely related, if at all.

Consider the historical arc where Putin took Ukraine in a week like he planned and successfully forced NATO back to 1997 lines. I guarantee there would have been no ICC indictment of Putin, Taiwan would be negotiating a surrender to China and you would be out front demanding a peace deal now.

The future would have belonged to Xi, Putin, Jong-un and Khamenei, with our frayed democracies in a historic retreat and our own populations voting for Trumps, Johnsons and further curtailment of our freedoms. That future would certainly reflect on the great victory against the West very positively - it would be celebrated worldwide as the "final death of Western imperialism and the rise of true people's democracy."
 
Last edited:
If one is a defence lawyer one can easily see why this deceptive language is useful. But deceptive it remains, and actually it is dissembling in reality. Glossing something illegal with a soft view of the perpetrator ... Politicians, lawyers and propaganda ministries love dissembling like this if it helps those without critical thinking skills accept the message, prima face.

George
You stand by that even if the car was indeed stolen by three 16-year-olds for the thrill of it?
 
You stand by that even if the car was indeed stolen by three 16-year-olds for the thrill of it?

Absolutely.

Just the same as four year old boys ripping the wings off flies. Terrible and they need teaching the wrongness of their ways rather than being soft on their behaviour in so called empathetic and dissembling language.

The road to Hell is paved with good intent. Sometimes one has to be tough to be kind.

Just a thought.

Best wishes from George
 
One should pause to consider Iraq continuously under Saddam and after his passing under his nice sons all the way to today.

I am pretty sure you would be mum on the numerous attrocities committed by them in the last 20 years. After all this would be native attrocities - nothing European intellectuals historically cared about.
Nope. I condemn all murderous thugs. Including Putin and Saddam.

Also, W and Blair - the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent ccivilians on their hands.

My position is not hard to understand.
 
Sure, but that never stopped him from mass atrocities against his own population before. His sons, by all reports raised to be fine torturers and rapists, would have been a fitting and natural follow up.

Morality of nation's actions and historical outcomes are very loosely related, if at all.

Consider the historical arc where Putin took Ukraine in a week like he planned and successfully forced NATO back to 1997 lines. I guarantee there would have been no ICC indictment of Putin, Taiwan would be negotiating a surrender to China and you would be out front demanding a peace deal now.

The future would have belonged to Xi, Putin, Jong-un and Khamenei, with our frayed democracies in a historic retreat and our own populations voting for Trumps, Johnsons and further curtailment of our freedoms. That future would certainly reflect on the great victory against the West very positively - it would be celebrated worldwide as the "final death of Western imperialism and the rise of true people's democracy."
Wrong again.

I despise all bullies and authoritarians including Putin.

And Trump and Johnson.

My position is entirely clear and morally consistent.
 
Wrong again.

I despise all bullies and authoritarians including Putin.

And Trump and Johnson.

My position is entirely clear and morally consistent.
I am sure that you consider your position to be clear and morally consistent.

However, when I tried to get you to articulate any practical position earlier, your response was "I dunno."

So do you now have an actual position re. topic of this thread (other than US is BAD) that you are willing to share with the thread?
 
Last edited:
I expect anyone or any government that is doing something morally wrong will try to dress the action up in euphemistic language. "Pax Britanica" being one splendid example. Or Putin's, "Special Military Operation."

Best wishes from Goegre


You can't beat

"Noble Anvil"

For NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.
 
You can't beat

"Noble Anvil"

For NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.
I don't think "Yugoslavia" existed in 1999 and its very fine people have been killing each other for a decade with much abandon.

I would have thought Milosevic had some excellent names for his ethnic cleansing operations.
 
"Moscow" was criticized, so you hurried to point out that the US was 'famous' for the same fault. Why?
Because the criticism of Moscow as the sole user of euphemisms is not true. The truth is that the US is famous for the same fault. The demand that moral judgements are ring fenced to exclude comparisons is not moral
 


advertisement


Back
Top