Ukraine and Endless War for Profit

[Peter]

5 hours ago, tmj said:

And has zeroed in on the two most important words, Putin’s unprovoked invasion.

 

Ruh Row. Thank you for picking up on the fact that the RUSSIAN MONSTERS were trying to kill innocent pipple. You da best tmj. Just joking, but seriously . . .  

[Peter]

Argue all you want about how Ukraine must have started this INVASION . . . or that Russia is not to blame . . .  but I have seen too much equivocation on this subject / One country invading and murdering the citizens of another country is evil.  

e·vil [ˈēvəl] ADJECTIVE profoundly immoral and wicked: "his evil deeds" · [more synonyms: wicked · bad · wrong · morally wrong · wrongful · immoral · sinful ·  [more] . . . . The initiation of force is the start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint. This is to be distinguished from retaliatory force and violence.

On the good side . . . Vlad the Impaler Putin is losing his hair and looking older. I hope his generals or his fiancée takes him out before he can . . . murder millions.

[anthony]

Nothing gets through to some, didn't see it, my trusted msm haven't informed me, therefore it could not have happened.

Maybe a song will help. "Initiation of force":

https://youtu.be/D1BhAeTeYFY

 

[Peter]

35 minutes ago, anthony said:

Maybe a song will help. "Initiation of force":

How much needless, initiated death, must occur before "you change your tune?" Ukraine did not initiate force or murder Russians. Ukraine is STILL not invading Russia. What kind of an Objectivist can sanction the initiation of force, the murder of soldiers and civilians? How can you take Vlad's side . . . with a hem and a haw? 

[Peter]

Forgive me Saint Ayn. This may seem like a variant of the argument from intimidation, but where does this hatred of Ukraine and the tolerance if not love for formerly Communist Russia come from? Did someone from Ukraine scam you out of money? Do you have deep ties with the former communist but now despotic, and monstrous, Russia? A lot of journalists go to Ukraine from many countries, but after one day they know who the aggressor is . . . they know who the monsters are . . . So, without ever journeying there, why can’t you see, or reason who the monsters are?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

Do you really love the Chinese Communist Party that much?

You're showing them an awful lot of love...

   

(I'm funnin' with you.  )

Michael

[Jules Troy]

40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

Do you really love the Chinese Communist Party that much?

You're showing them an awful lot of love...

   

(I'm funnin' with you.  )

Michael

Someone has to make me my Wor wonton soup!

[anthony]

6 hours ago, Peter said:

 Ukraine did not initiate force or murder Russians. Ukraine is STILL not invading Russia. What kind of an Objectivist can sanction bla bla

Murder? YES they have. The Russian-Ukrainians. Only for the last 8 years. Again, still now and in recent months, deliberately targeting Donetsk civilians, to the tune of a few hundreds killed. You are not told that in your media bubble, are you?

To see how -selectively- 'humanitarian and compassionate' that most people are, all of a sudden, is an eye-opener. 'Those' innocent civilians deserve our pity, but 'those' don't. That's bigotry.

But you think that "invasion" is the only initiation of force here. Add, death by government. What would any leader do, but try to end that dangerous Civil War before it spilled over into Russia, a conflict which NATO/EU etc. encouraged to go on, and armed/trained  the Ukrainian Army for, for their underhanded purposes.

[anthony]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

 Do you have deep ties with the former communist but now despotic, and monstrous, Russia? A lot of journalists go to Ukraine from many countries..

There's been no journalism practiced in Ukraine, "journalists" are seldom allowed near the front lines, most being chicken to go. Kyiv hands out only the news they want you gullibles to hear, their atrocities concealed.

[anthony]

"The NY Times is lying": MoA

With Civilian Attacks, Putin Gives Hard-Liners What They Wanted

"'Civilian attacks' when, as the NYT itself reports, only 14 persons were killed and less than 100 wounded yesterday during 200+ missile and drone strikes":

>The attacks killed at least 14 and wounded scores of others, while countless more in cities across Ukraine were terrified by dozens of incoming missiles explicitly targeting civilian infrastructure.< NYT

"How many of those were killed by Ukrainian air defense misses is not known. It is sad that people get killed in a war but sometimes unavoidable.

The Ukraine military has killed way more civilians by its artillery strikes on Donetsk city".

[anthony]

14 dead and scores wounded. 200+ missiles fired:

Therefore, ten to fifteen missiles/drones to kill one civilian.

Civilian "infrastructure" attacks, electrical grid, comms, etc., obviously, were very precisely targeted - not "civilian attacks".

And- there has been video footage of Ukraine anti-missile missiles, falling short and plunging into the populated areas, explaining some of the deaths and urban damage. e.g. a children's playground.

The New York Times believes their readers are dunces.

[Ellen Stuttle]

8 hours ago, anthony said:

Nothing gets through to some, didn't see it, my trusted msm haven't informed me, therefore it could not have happened.

Worse, my trusted MSM have lied, lied, lied, but I'll keep my head firmly glued in comforting sand and continue to believe the story they tell.

Ellen

[Marc]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Worse, my trusted MSM have lied, lied, lied, but I'll keep my head firmly glued in comforting sand and continue to believe the story they tell.

Ellen

Even worse, proof is not proof unless it comes via MSM.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wow...

This Russia-Ukraine mess now has a strong political casualty.

Tulsi Gabbard just left the Democratic Party and is inviting disaffected Democrats to leave with her. The problem is woke authoritarian war-mongering.

She didn't say she was going Republican, but that's OK.

Getting away from the predator class is the ticket to freedom.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Speaking of Tulsi, here she is with Joe Rogan talking about what the reality of a nuclear war will look like as opposed to what is being said in the media.

This was just uploaded, so I imagine it is not just recent. It's current.

 

As Tulsi said, between Russia and the US, these two countries alone hold 90% of all nuclear weapons on earth.

And the war profiteers are pushing Russia to get it right up to the point where they will back off. Why? So they can maximize their profits. But their entire approach is predicated on the belief that Putin would never use his nuclear arsenal, that he would never be crazy enough to do that.

You can only stare in wonder. That's one hell of a presupposition based on what? When you look, it's based on nothing. It's based on emotion instead of identification. And what is the driving emotion? Greed for the unearned allied to magical thinking.

Here's reality. If Putin uses his nukes, the US will use its nukes and the entire world will change into something different than it is now. That something will not be good. There will be no winners and losers. There will only be losers.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Speaking of Tulsi, here she is with Joe Rogan talking about what the reality of a nuclear war will look like as opposed to what is being said in the media.

This was just uploaded, so I imagine it is not just recent. It's current.

 

 

What the MSM tells us it will be like:

 

(There's Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone magazine on Rogan's show calling for government censorship, and now, this...If the anti-war Left of the 60's could only see things now...)

 

[Marc]

It keeps getting better.

[ThatGuy]

25 minutes ago, Marc said:

It keeps getting better.

So that means if one criticizes Zuckerberg and Facebook for enabling government censorship, and getting in bed with the Obama/Biden administrations to interfere with elections and enact socialism in the United States, then one is automatically in support of Russia, correct? And is rooting for an invading force?  Am I doing this right?

(That's a brilliant strategy, lol. But that only works on those who buy in to such false dichotomies...)

[Marc]

 

[tmj]

14 hours ago, Peter said:

How much needless, initiated death, must occur before "you change your tune?" Ukraine did not initiate force or murder Russians. Ukraine is STILL not invading Russia. What kind of an Objectivist can sanction the initiation of force, the murder of soldiers and civilians? How can you take Vlad's side . . . with a hem and a haw? 

Fuck Russia , I’m not on a ‘side’ that is either for or against the Russian regime. 

Why should anyone be on Ukraine’s ‘side’?

What specific reasoning determines that outside of either being Russian or Ukrainian me must pick a side  , Ohioans need to pick a side?

This ‘war’ is about and should be contained to the specific coastlines and pipelines on which it is centered. And I don’t give a flying fuck who ‘owns’ Crimea , why should or does anyone outside of Crimea care ?

I do give a fuck about the innocent life wasted in determining control of those regions, a control which can only exercised by the regimes in question , but 5th graders are 5th graders the world over and none of them control canals or ports.

Give me one good reason US made munitions should kill 5th graders in order for the ‘rightful ‘owner of a port to operate the port as they see fit and maybe I’ll pick a side , yeah no I won’t because there are no good reasons for such an argument. There are narratives and gaslighting galore to help people not think and just go along with the death and destruction and sometimes even cheer it along, but no good reasons.

[Peter]

What objectivists object to is "the initiation of force." You don't need to "feel" for the people being hurt, but everyone should say no to the "initiation of force." Ayn Rand had a lot to say about the subject.

[tmj]

Did she ever say you are morally obligated to kill in response to every initiation of force ? Or was it that you are morally justified by responding to the initiation of force? They don’t sound like the same thing.

She also said rational self interest is one's highest moral obligation. 

I’m ready to hear how my tax dollars are washed in moral purity when they make possible the bombing of civilians in countries that did not initiate force against the US.

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

What objectivists object to is "the initiation of force." You don't need to "feel" for the people being hurt, but everyone should say no to the "initiation of force." Ayn Rand had a lot to say about the subject.

Notice how persistently Peter ignores the well-informed material and commentary Tony keeps providing.

The applicable Objectivist term is "evasion."

Ellen

[tmj]

Unprovoked evasion?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter is a friend and, in my view, he is not one of the bad guys.

I strongly disagree with the perspectives of his that are aligned with the legacy media, but I don't want him to agree with me unless it comes from inside himself, from the best thinking he can muster for himself.

I know what it takes to ween off an intellectual and spiritual pillar because the facts don't align. It doesn't happen easily. It is painful and distressing. And it is as confusing as all hell.

So each of us has to do this in our own time, if that time even comes.

Anyway, I'm not criticizing anyone with this comment, not Peter and not his critics.

I'm merely saying that I consider Peter a friend and I admire his grit in keeping to his own views until he, himself, deems to think otherwise. Also, I am sure the details of my disagreements with his views are evident to most everyone in my posts.

Just think. He's gotta live in his own head, not me.

But, then again, you should see what's in my head. 

 

Michael