this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
378 points (92.2% liked)
World News
276 readers
559 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are two factors at play here. I am baffled when I hear that seeking peace by the Allies is considered a negative, while bombing Axis cities is viewed as a positive. If we are to discuss the specific circumstances required for peace, it is undoubtedly a far more complex conversation. During World War II, we were faced with the threat of the Aryan race attempting to dominate Europe and the Japanese Empire's sweeping control over vast portions of East Asia, including most of China's eastern coastal areas, Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, and parts of Southeast Asia such as Vietnam, the Philippines, and many Pacific islands. Under those conditions, peaceful resolution was never a feasible option, particularly when considering the cost to their citizens. Peace may not have been achievable during that time, but in the present day, the lack of communication and de-escalation strategies from the current American administration has, in my view, contributed to the avoidance of peace rather than its pursuit.
What you don't seem to understand is Putin doesn't negotiate in good faith anyway, it has been proven over and over the Russian Government will lie, cheat, steal, whatever to get what they want. Appeasing dictators does not work and only strengthens them for their inevitable march on to attempt to gain more power/land/money.
The United States does not always negotiate in good faith either, and in this case, we are not holding the moral high ground. Dictatorships are ultimately the responsibility of the people within those nations to address and resolve, not external powers.
The current administration should have prioritized diplomatic efforts for peace rather than immediately resorting to military support escalating the conflict.
Man if only there was some example prior to the invasion of Ukraine where the west did nothing, and Russia then continued to escalate, something like Crimea?
I understand your point, and I agree that Russia shouldn't be trusted. However, there are times when decisions must prioritize saving lives. If we claim to hold the moral high ground, it’s important to reflect on the following considerations.
Throughout history, U.S. actions have led to devastating consequences for local populations. During the Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. encouraged Iraqis, particularly Shia and Kurds, to rise against Saddam Hussein but failed to provide any support, leaving them vulnerable to brutal retaliation. Similarly, after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, many local allies were left behind, facing violence and death. These events underscore the need for accountability in international interventions. Since World War II, many conflicts seem driven more by economic and geopolitical interests than genuine causes, echoing General Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex's unchecked influence.
I don't know why you keep going back to US actions unrelated to Ukraine.
I completely agree a lot of US foreign interference is done through greed, but this is not one of those instances.
You don't know why???!!
I don't, because it's not directly relevant to the circumstance were talking about.
"But America bad too" isn't a reason to not help Ukraine fight off Russia.
but are we really helping them by getting them killed? If we really wanted to help we would start diplomacy, take a good look at our past and don't think we are so much better than Russia. We are not!
If you want them to keep getting killed yes its irrelevant what the US did in the past. If you want peace we need to take a good look at our selves and work with Russia. You know Trump is going to work with Russia to stop this instead of the current administrator meat grinder strategy.
How would we be helping them by letting Russia take over the entire country?
I'm not saying to let Russia take over the country. Let the administrations iron it out with the Kremlin and put a stop to this cynical war.
Lmfao, Russia has no interest in diplomacy, they illegal invaded Crimea and annexed it, and the west did nothing.
Big surprise they then invaded ALL of Ukraine, how can you possibly think diplomacy is going to work?
Cynical war indeed, that Russia started as a "special military exercise" and has consistently lied about to their people and abroad.
You're delusional if you think Russia is coming to any diplomatic agreements in good faith.
I am not justifying Russia's unjustifiable attack on Ukraine; I firmly believe they should withdraw and end the conflict. However, it’s important to recognize that Russia perceives itself as fighting a defensive war, much like the perspective you’ve expressed.
While we can debate the motives on both sides endlessly, the reality remains that innocent people are dying—not just soldiers but civilians, including the elderly and children, who are succumbing to preventable causes due to a lack of basic necessities. These are unnecessary and tragic losses a sin in the eyes of the lord.
It’s deeply troubling that such suffering continues because two powers cannot reach an agreement—one striving to reclaim a Soviet-era vision, and the other pursuing profit-driven interests. This cycle of violence and disregard for human life is a tragedy that must not be normalized.