You repeatedly argue that America is morally obligated to defend Ukraine because it’s a sovereign territory that has been invaded by the Russian military. For the sake of argument let’s assume American aid helps the Ukraine military drive Russia out. Suppose the Ukrainian military does not stop at the border but instead pursues its enemy into Russia itself. Would you consider that to be a Ukrainian invasion into Russia’s sovereign territory? Would America then be morally obligated to switch sides and come to Russia’s defense?
Hypothetical Question For @Syskatine
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
USA is obligated to be the world’s policeman when a democrook president wants it to be. Everyone knows this.
I'm not Sy, but I would not support Ukraine invading Russia. There is no reason for Ukraine to pursue Russia into Russia itself. Doing so would be a mistake by Ukraine and our government should.not support such action by Ukraine.
Russia needs to leave Ukraine and respect Ukraine's sovereignty.
Edit: …democrook president or his handlers. (My bad)
If you agree with this, then why do you not also agree that Russia should not have invaded Ukraine? Why do you not believe that we should firmly support Ukraine's sovereignty and continue to demand that Russia withdraws from Ukraine?
Your reply is appreciated, but it does not address the question. The principle that has been espoused more times than I can count has said America should aid Ukraine because its sovereign territory has been violated by military invasion from Russia. The question - which has been stipulated is hypothetical - asks if the same principle applies if the situation is reversed and Ukraine sends its military into Russia’s sovereign territory. Would not the same principle be in force? Should America, following its principles, then not be obligated to come to Russia’s aid?
Again, the USA should make it clear to Ukraine that they should not send their military into Russia. And if Ukraine decides to do so, the USA should oppose it and bring diplomatic pressure to bear on Ukraine to withdraw from Russia. I'm sure though Ukraine has no intention of doing this. It would be completely foolish of them and they would absolutely lose the strong international support they currently have. It is clearly not in their interests or the interests of their allies.
As for financial aid, Russia would not request financial aid from us if this was to happen.
So as usual you want to answer the question you want to be asked, not the one being asked.
I've answered your ridiculous hypothetical question that you came up with at 6 in the morning. As usual, you just can't or won't accept the answer.
btw, still waiting on you to answer the numerous questions that have been asked of you on the other thread.
Why should I accept a non answer as an answer? What makes it so uncomfortable for you to be consistent with the principle you have espoused for the last year? A principle is not a principle if it does not apply in every case. So be consistent. Tell us the US should aid Russia if Ukraine’s military violates sovereign Russian territory just like you say we should aid Ukraine because Russia’s military has violated Ukraine’s sovereign territory. Man up! Either be consistent or admit your hypocrisy.
I don't think i said "obligated" but I think it's justified.
Well, you ask an age-old question. If a bully picks a fight and then is getting mudholed, at what point should someone step in and rescue the bully? Let the bully/assailant suffer profound injury or death when the victim is kicking the bully in the head with no apparent intent to stop? I think 10 reasonable men would independently probably draw the line in 10 different places. I don't know exactly where to draw the line.
In this case, I'm inclined to say if Ukraine manages to invade russia, then Russia has to live with it because they started it. But yeah, if Ukraine was committing atrocities like Russia I'd probably say someone should reign them in.
Your question isn't practical though, because Biden said our and nato's stuff may NOT be used inside Russia. Those are the terms. I probably disagree with that, but in any event that's the situation.
That's the thing about starting a war: all kinds of unnatural, impossible problems for good people. Do you agree with me that starting a war is the most immoral act a human can commit?
Absolutely I agree with you. Do you agree with me that a third party provoking a war is as immoral as the one starting it?
Maybe if in January, '22, if Ukraine tested a nuke near the border just to make sure it's working good, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would've used them if someone was doing to us what Putin is doing to Ukraine.
I acknowledge the principle. The principle is frustrated if invaders are allowed to do what russia's done without having the living shit kicked out of them.
Deterrence is a basic principle, too. I'm personally okay if ukraine, NATO, and the international community make an example of putin. Russia's been a violent, criminal, malignant, anti-democratic influence and shithole for over a century. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, six generations of that is enough.
A third parry just deliberately start a war of aggression? Absolutely.
Your mistake is confusing Russia of today with communist USSR of old. They are distinctky different entities.
Again, the USA should make it clear to Ukraine that they should not send their military into Russia. And if Ukraine decides to do so, the USA should oppose it and bring diplomatic pressure to bear on Ukraine to withdraw from Russia. I'm sure though Ukraine has no intention of doing this. It would be completely foolish of them and they would absolutely lose the strong international support they currently have. It is clearly not in their interests or the interests of their allies.
As for financial aid, Russia would not request financial aid from us if this was to happen.
I'm being consistent. I would not support Ukraine invading Russia just as I do not support Russia invading Ukraine.
No you don't believe this because right after you said this, you then clarified your position with this . . .
An excuse for Putin starting a war.
No one forced Putin to invade Ukraine. No one. He did it on his own. Stop blaming others for Putin's decision. Treat Putin like you do the USA when it comes to Vietnam. Or the Bay of Pigs.
Yes they are.
But @Syskatine is still right concerning his comments about Putin-led Russia. Why you feel the need to defend and side with a man like Putin is beyond me.
Again, you are avoiding having to be consistent. You know that, of course, we all can see it. But inconsistency is your trademark. So it comes as no surprise that you are terrified of answering the question that has been asked. At least @Syskatine has shown he has a pair. You OTOH …
I've answered your question three times now. Three times lol.
Once again, I'm being consistent. I would not support Ukraine invading Russia just as I do not support Russia invading Ukraine. Period.
Again you avoid an honest answer. Should the US come to Russia’s aid if it’s territorial sovereignty is invaded by Ukraine? Quit hiding behind the meaningless drivel. Yes or no. Should America provide Russia with the same sustenance if Ukraine’s army invades Russia as it has provided Ukraine because Russia invaded Ukraine? Does your principle hold fast? You’re trying too hard to be a moving target. Nut up and say yes or no. That’s all it takes, one word: yes or no.
Yes.
Now, let's review your original questions . . .
This has also been answered.
Yes, it would be a Ukrainian invansion. Yes, the USA should oppose a Ukrainian invansion and defend Russian sovereignty from such an invansion. The USA should bring diplomatic pressure to bear on Ukraine to withdraw from Russia. Even knowing that Russia started this war and that Russia was the original aggressor.
All your questions have been answered. Numerous times.
Last edited:
Similar threads
