Putin The Guilty

[Madison320]

It depends on what you mean by "support".

I might agree or disagree with it, but I would not oppose it (in the sense of regarding the use of force against the ostracizers to be justified) unless others were being forced to participate in the ostracism against their wills.

I do not "support" (in the sense of "agree with" or "approve of") excluding or ostracizing people from a place of business on the basis of the color of their skin, and would regard such a policy as "problematic". I would counter-ostracize businesses which implemented such a policy by not giving them my custom, by encouraging others to do the same, and by criticizing those who did not. But so long as such businesses did not try to force others to implement the same policy (via Jim Crow laws, for example), I would oppose and would not "support" (in the aforementioned sense) the use of force against them in order to make them change their policy. Nor would I "support" (again, in the aforementioned sense) the use of force against those who did not choose to participate in the counter-ostracism of such businesses.

The sanctions Madison320 refers to are like those Jim Crow laws. They force others to participate in ostracism against their wills, and that is why they are morally objectionable. That the targets of the enforced ostracism may be "problematic" does not change this.

Also the US government should only be punishing crimes on US soil. A proper libertarian government would only retaliate against the initiation of force within its borders. We're not the world police.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Also the US government should only be punishing crimes on US soil. A proper libertarian government would only retaliate against the initiation of force within its borders. We're not the world police.

I am inclined to agree on prudential grounds - but there is nothing in libertarian theory that forbids retaliations against initiations of force that occur outside the borders of a libertarian polity. Libertarian theory permits the use of retaliatory force, but does not require it.

 

[Madison320]

I am inclined to agree on prudential grounds - but there is nothing in libertarian theory that forbids retaliations against initiations of force that occur outside the borders of a libertarian polity. Libertarian theory permits the use of retaliatory force, but does not require it.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing but even from a theoretical standpoint it seems there might be something wrong with retaliating against force outside of your borders.

Now that I think about it, we'd be right back to my initial argument that US citizens should not be forced to retaliate against force outside of our borders. I feel like there's an assumed contract that our government can only police our own borders.

 

[TheTexan]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing but even from a theoretical standpoint it seems there might be something wrong with retaliating against force outside of your borders.

If someone is launching rockets from "their" land into yours, they aren't entitled to that land anymore. It's yours if you want it and can take it.

This is how the "palestinians" lost much of their land.

 

[Madison320]

If someone is launching rockets from "their" land into yours, they aren't entitled to that land anymore. It's yours if you want it and can take it.

This is how the "palestinians" lost much of their land.

In that case the force is not outside of your border. I think there's an implied contract that my government is only going to protect me and my fellow citizens against force. That's why as a libertarian I'm willing to have a certain minimal amount of force used against me, mainly in the form of taxes, to protect me from force. But I'm not willing to be forced to protect some guy in afghanistan who gets killed. That's not part of the implied contract.

 

[Contumacious]

It may be that Obama's actions of 2014 helped lead to the current storm of destruction in Ukraine, but that does not imply Russia's actions are in any way justifiable. It is only a pretext, and given that this is all political theater, I see nothing to excuse Putin's actions.

Putin has painted the entire northern hemisphere into a corner into which nobody with an IQ wishes to be. I will gladly put full responsibility on the idiot Obama in that he handed Putin this opportunity on a silver platter. I can easily see how Obama's ham-fisted stupidity could lead to this. He is a feckless boob who had less business in the Oval Office than do I, making it trebly inexcusable that a KGB operator like Putin actually took the obvious bait.

As the source of the sad joke that was the Soviet Union, Russia carries ultimate blame for this unjustifiable destruction. They held a blood-soaked revolution, which may have been justified, but then became themselves despots at least two orders of magnitude worse than the tsars they displaced, murdering hundreds or thousands of times as many people as all the Romanovs combined. They were the one's who stole nuclear technologies from America via Ft. Monmouth pursuant to an infantile agenda of turning the entire planet into a communist garbage dump, threatening nuclear war with every foot-stamping tantrum of it's "leaders", such as of that buffoon Khrushchev with his shoe-banging fit of idiot's rage at the UN.

The Russian people were given a clean sheet when Gorbachev folded that confederation of raw and pathologically dangerous idiocy, and what did they do? They put more jackwagons at the helm, Putin being the worst of them as he unliaterally granted himself dictatorial powers and set himself up as perpetual Fearless Leader.

Putin has admitted his fondness for the idea of seeing a reconstitution of Soviet-era territories and appears to be using Obama's pathetically transparent meddling as the pretext for his first and largest move pursuant thereto. By this action, which is naught but Soviet territorial aggression Part Deux, Putin has singlehandedly precipitated this wholly unnecessary misery and danger. The chain of rank Russian political guilt remains unbroken since the days of the 1917 Coup. In the face of all the wild complaining about Hitler, the Russian mob has proven itself far and away the greater evil, eclipsed only by China in all the history of humanity.

To those who have asserted that were China to put troops in Canada and Mexico, America would do the same as Russia, this is a false equivalence of epic proportions. Mexico and Canada have no just cause for inviting Chinese military presence on their territories because America poses no threat to them, whereas the long history of Russian abuse of Ukraine wholly justifies the Ukrainian desire to become NATO members. The precedent was set with the blood of those lost millions of innocents whom the Russians brutally and remorelessly starved to death, tortured, disappeared, and sent to the gulags.

Nobody with a shred of intelligence would trust the Russians to tell them that water is wet. Their "government" has been the poster child for the most raving evil in all human history, equaled only by the Chinese.

Those who are attempting to mitigate or even justify Russia's current actions because America, are either fools or are peddling an unpublished agenda.

Guilt in the currently developing felon-fest is Putin's alone. There is no valid mitigation, much less justification for this most recent episode in the long and miserably vulgar history of Russian mass murder. Neither America nor NATO pose the least threat to Russia, as if anyone other than the Russian government could be so bottomlessly stupid as to think that there is anything they possess that the world wants so badly that they would risk nuclear annihilation to get them. This is a depth of stupidity to which I am not even sure a Democrat could plunge, but can readily believe of a commnuist.

Bulls h i t

If all countries on the face of mother earth subscribed to Libertarianism then I would agree that Putin had no right to invade Ukraine and kill innocent civilians.

But we are not living in a Libertarian world.

Therefore, Based on the principles recognized during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Russia had the right to conduct a surgical police military actions.

.

 

[vita3]

Russia’s words & red lines were ignored.

We all know our military Foreign Policy is criminal & the most aggressive in the World

Russia is destroying the military on its borders that US & NATO have built up for 8 years, following a Western Backed Coup

Libertarian philosophy is nice to talk about & I agree with most of it’s ideals, but here we are.

 

[Invisible Man]

Bulls h i t

If all countries on the face of mother earth subscribed to Libertarianism then I would agree that Putin had no right to invade Ukraine and kill innocent civilians.

But we are not living in a Libertarian world.

Therefore, Based on the principles recognized during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Russia had the right to conduct a surgical police military actions.

.

What's the purpose of qualifying a military operation as "surgical" if you're referring to the killing of innocent civilians?

 

[pcosmar]

What's the purpose of qualifying a military operation as "surgical" if you're referring to the killing of innocent civilians?

Collateral Damage (innocents) are always an issue in modern Warfare.. as is Propaganda..

"Surgical" is Targeting Military targets while avoiding collateral damage.

Azov however has a History of deliberately targeting civilians. and using Human Shields as routine practice.

The intent is to remove Azov,, and Minimize killing hostages.
It is slower that many had hoped.

 

[TheTexan]

Collateral Damage (innocents) are always an issue in modern Warfare.. as is Propaganda..

"Surgical" is Targeting Military targets while avoiding collateral damage.

Azov however has a History of deliberately targeting civilians. and using Human Shields as routine practice.

The intent is to remove Azov,, and Minimize killing hostages.
It is slower that many had hoped.

Azov Nazi's hate Russians (and Jews). Same way that German Nazi's hated Jews.

The lives of Russians are worth less than zero, to them. Cockroaches.

And the wider Ukrainian military isn't much better on that count. Azov is just more blatant about it.

 

[osan]

Bulls h i t/

Well that was constructive.

If all countries on the face of mother earth subscribed to Libertarianism then I would agree that Putin had no right to invade Ukraine and kill innocent civilians.

Since when does subscription and unity, as you put it, define praxeological validity?

Please explain in detail the precise and correct justification for Putin's invasion.

But we are not living in a Libertarian world.

All the more reason to condemn murderous, butchering tyranny.

You might want to think a little more carefully on your stated position on the matter. "Well, since we live in a world raped by tyrannical criminality and rank stupidity, it's OK that Russia has run its army into Ukraine." HELLO?

Therefore, Based on the principles recognized during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Russia had the right to conduct a surgical police military actions.

Nonsequitur.

Ignoring the gaping hole in your logic, what about Russia's actions to date have been surgical? Those assholes can't get ordnance on target worth a damn. But even if they were capable, what on earth has that to do with anything? What's the basis of the justification you assert?

Putin has claimed "humanitarian" reasons for the invasion - "deNAZIfication". How does anyone with an IQ buy anything so transparently stupid? If we assume Ukraine is NAZI, so fookin' what? If you're indeed so dedicated to libertarianism, then what could you possibly see as the valid basis for the murder of innocent people? How is it Russia's business to de-NAZIfy Ukraine? Until Ukrainian tanks are rolling across the border, their political arrangement is none of anyone's business, even it they choose NAZIsm.

As I've written previously, there is no creative slicing of this feces pie that will turn it into cherry.

Putin is a mass-murdering scumbag and should be called to account. If perchance he has a valid basis for taking these actions, he absolutely sucks at conveying it to the world. "I'm saving Ukraine from NAZIs"? Come now.

 

[TheCount]

Ignoring the gaping hole in your logic, what about Russia's actions to date have been surgical? Those assholes can't get ordnance on target worth a damn. But even if they were capable, what on earth has that to do with anything? What's the basis of the justification you assert?

No, no, it's a targeted surgical denazification with no impact on the civilian population. See?

 

[osan]

Russia’s words & red lines were ignored.

Let us look at the historical record. Ukraine has no record of aggressing against Russia, of which I am aware... at least not in the past century, which is the only relevant era. Soviet Russia starved six million+ Ukrainians to death as Moscow expropriated the fruits of Ukraine's labor.

Have you any idea what it is like to starve to death; to even be wildly hungry? That's not a rhetorical question.

My parents lived through WWII and the aftermath. Mom regaled me with the stories of not eating anything for up to a week at a time, and how they ate bread that was solidly blue because that was all they had. When I was 16 I finally decided I had to know what it was like to be truly hungry. In those days I was an eating machine, but I starved myself one weekend in 1974 from Friday just after breakfast, until the following Monday. My mother was fit to be tied, but I refused a morsel. I still don't know how I managed it because came that Monday, I ate my folks out of house and home. It was only three days and I was ready to promise anything for some food. And that was with the knowledge that I could eat any time I wanted to. Add to the sheer physical misery the mental horror of having no idea whether you will ever again have food. I will tell you that unless you live it, you will never even begin to be able to understand it. I did it once and would never do it again.

So now give that as the context of what Russia did to Ukraine. Russia's aggression, theft, and slaughter, not Ukraine's. You should be able to understand why Ukraine might be interested in jointing NATO.

That all aside, whence Russia's authority to dictate Ukrainian associations in the absence of a clear threat? Would you also support Russian invasion in the event Ukraine began making noise about joining the EU? If not, why not? What's the real difference there? Just how likely does anything think it is that Ukraine is going to invade Russia? Just this side of zero chance. Russia is full of baloney. There is a world of difference between joining NATO and amassing NATO troops and other assets in Ukraine, in which case I would agree that Russia would have a valid basis for concern. Beyond that, what Ukraine does isn't really for Russia to dictate, and that is precisely what they are doing.

We all know our military Foreign Policy is criminal & the most aggressive in the World

What has that to do with the issue of invasion?

Russia is destroying the military on its borders that US & NATO have built up for 8 years, following a Western Backed Coup

Have foreign troops been massed on the Russian border? If so, the media have been something of quiet on the matter. Ask why the military is there. If anyone has a precedent for feeling threatened, it's Ukraine.

And just for the record, Ukraine can go pound salt up its ass, too. I'm no fan, but Russia's aggression is not justifiable. All this presumptive speculation in which humand engage, and that lead so often to war, should be given the heave-ho on all sides. Ours. Russia's. China's. Everyone. But they won't because the people in question are assholes, descended from generations of other assholes who have painted the entire human race into a paranoid and possibly auto-erasing corner.

Libertarian philosophy is nice to talk about & I agree with most of it’s ideals, but here we are.

Now THAT is well stated.

Humans.

 

[TheTexan]

No, no, it's a targeted surgical denazification with no impact on the civilian population. See?

The people in Mariupol blame almost all of the damage on the Ukrainians - and with good reason.

Russian strikes have been consistently military targets. Western sources repeatedly claim that they are civilian targets with no military value... but this is very quickly and easily disproven by the wealth of social media images of military hardware and personal accounts that prove it was a military target.

Ukrainian strikes? They don't even bother having a target. Their artillery will just choose in the general direction of the Russians, civilian or military. This again, is backed up with over 8 years of significant evidence and personal accounts.

I have looked and continue to look for 1st person accounts that back up Ukrainian's side of the story but these are rare to find in comparison, and basically none of it can be corroborated with other testimony.. Which is ironic, considering it is the pro-Russian content that is continuously being erased and censored.

Not to mention Azov's strategy of using civilian prisoners as human shields... this certainly is a contributing factor to Mariupol's destruction.

 

[ClaytonB]

No, no, it's a targeted surgical denazification with no impact on the civilian population. See?

And just look at this footage of Russian forces attacking police cars of the Uranium People!

 

[TheTexan]

Ignoring the gaping hole in your logic, what about Russia's actions to date have been surgical? Those assholes can't get ordnance on target worth a damn.

I have not found this to be true at all. Western propaganda would have you believe this to be true, but the facts on the ground do not support it.

If anyone has a precedent for feeling threatened, it's Ukraine.

This is just ignorant.

Donbass has suffered war and genocide at the hands of the Ukrainians for 8 years. For no reason than spite and pure hatred. Ukraine is not some innocent victim here who was attacked out of nowhere. They are murderous fascists who are getting what they deserve.

Don't want to be invaded by Russia? Don't be murderous Nazi fascists. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania weren't invaded when they joined NATO. But then again, those countries weren't murdering ethnic Russians in cold-blood in the name of literal Nazi fascism.

 

[TheTexan]

"Poor Ukraine"

Give me a god-damn break.

 

[TheTexan]

If you want to know what the war is really about... the below is what it really is about

This war is happening, because Ukraine would rather commit genocide against the ethnic Russians in Donbass, than let them secede or join Russia.

If Ukraine had let them peacefully secede, this war would not be happening. Period.

 

[TheTexan]

Ukraine is full of literal fucking Nazi's who would rather murder an entire population, than to see their borders change.

It's indefensible.

And if this war ends with Ukraine no longer existing a country, the world will be better off for it.

 

[TheTexan]

Putin has claimed "humanitarian" reasons for the invasion - "deNAZIfication". How does anyone with an IQ buy anything so transparently stupid? If we assume Ukraine is NAZI, so fookin' what? If you're indeed so dedicated to libertarianism, then what could you possibly see as the valid basis for the murder of innocent people? How is it Russia's business to de-NAZIfy Ukraine? Until Ukrainian tanks are rolling across the border, their political arrangement is none of anyone's business, even it they choose NAZIsm.

According to the Russian defense minister, "Denazification" refers primarily to the removal of the anti-Russian laws and policies that have been passed.

Ukraine over the past 8 years has made it impossible to live and work in Donbass, such as passing laws that shut down businesses, remove pensions, for the simple crime of living in Donbass, or for speaking Russian.

These laws were passed by Ukrainian ultra-nationalist fascist Nazi's with the intended purpose of driving Russians out of "their" borders. (not to mention, the genocides of innocent people, for the same reason, and with the same goal)

"denazification" has however always been stated as secondary purpose, with securing the safety of the Donbass people being the primary stated purpose.