85
Blinken: US Does Not Oppose Ukrainian Attacks Inside Russia With US-Supplied Missiles
(www.caitlinjohnst.one)
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
85 points (94.7% liked)
Death to NATO
1628 readers
1 users here now
For posting news about NATO's wars in Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, and The Middle East, including anywhere else NATO is currently engaged in hostile actions. As well as anything that relates to it.
Rules:
-
Follow Site Rules
-
No support nor defence of Western-backed governments, NATO or Western Imperialism
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
US does not oppose the distribution of stupid prizes to those who play stupid games
Are you advocating for Russia to strike NATO countries for supplying weapons? That's basically advocating for nuclear war, pretty bad take overall.
No, it's perfectly fine for millions, hell, billions to die if it punishes Putin Bad Man.
What part of what he said implies he's "advocating for Russia to strike NATO countries for supplying weapons".?
Thats never really been grounds for war in the past. Otherwise we would have gone to war with the soviets for Vietnam, and the soviets would have gone to war with us for Afghanistan.
If selling or giving weapons to your enemy's enemy was a cause for war we'd all be dead by now.
Cuban Missile Crisis ring any bells? The crackers nearly destroyed the planet over it.
Yes, and by all accounts it was an extremely stupid event, but it didn't start a hot war between the ussr and America.
Because it never lead to missile strikes on the US.
Why God has produced people like you its beyond my understanding...?
Is it counter revolutionary to not cheer a capitalist country invading an even poorer capitalist country?
it is extremely counter-revolutionary to cheer on a proxy of the real evil empire (united states) and the nazis that fight for it
how can you say that america doesn't have a monopoly on violence when it has committed horrible acts of violence across the world for decades (invasion of iraq, afghanistan, etc) with zero repercussions? america has never answered for the thousands of civilians slain by their soldiers.
attacking one of the historic enemies of socialism is important for leftists. the united states has spent countless dollars and years fighting socialist movements both domestically and abroad. you cannot be a leftist without being vehemently against american hegemony.
millions of civilians, comrade. don't understate the death toll for the sake of this western chauvinist
We have gone far further than any of those.
Imagine if the Soviet Union gave Vietnam missiles and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war.
That is an entirely different scale of involvement that has never been tested against a large power before.
While also providing direct targeting data for it to happen
You are falsely equivocating a 3rd party proxy war with a border conflict involving the actual imperial power. A better hypothetical would be if we invaded Mexico and the Russians gave them missiles to defend themselves. I don't really think that would be cause to invade Russia after Mexico. If you are invading your neighbor, you should expect some foreseeable blow back.
Huh, I remember something almost exactly like this happening 61 years ago that was probably the closest the world has been to nuclear war.
Yep, the US was definitely at fault in the Cuban Missile Crisis for the missile placements in Europe and preparing to invade Cuba
What is the difference? In both cases one side is giving missiles for the explicit purpose of striking the rivals cities.
Distance is pointless when that capability only exists due to the missiles provided.
WW3 is a real threat. Imagine if Russian responds by blowing up the trains the missiles are on in Poland? Or striking a Western city in turn?
We are relying on the restraint of gangster led Russia to avoid nuclear war here ffs.
One wouldn't have happened if you had not taken your initial action? Are we debating the moral merit of defending an attack vs making an attack?
I would say that Russia probably should have thought about that before annexing their neighbors lands? Does Russia have no onus to limit their actions for the sake of peace?
And they rely on that perception to do whatever they want. Putin is not deranged, he doesn't want to die in nuclear hell fire either. He just made a classic blunder, and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.
No, you're bringing morality into this when it doesn't belong. You're confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.
Whether or not there's a substantial moral difference between invading a neighboring country and invading one on the other side of the planet is irrelevant in this scenario. If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.
Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.
I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but it doesn't matter one iota whether or not Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.
I felt like that had to be said, because I think you psychos are still likely to think it's worth it.
for my next magic trick watch all your comments disappear
hey comrade I like dunking on the libs too but this is a little ableist
Ahh yes, I forgot that knowing basic history makes me a capitalist?
When did the modern Russian state become anything close to communist or socialist again?
You're not a capitalist, you're just a lib bootlicker
Capitalists don't waste their time defending capitalism online, they're busy doing drugs and pretending to work
Not generally. The capitalist class is a specific thing, it's not based on vibes.
Of course liberals support capitalism and cannot be socialist. The problem is that capitalist is simply not the word for someone who supports capitalism in the same way that socialist is the word for someone who supports socialism. It's an unintuitive language quirk, but not a unique one.
If we were to redefine capitalist to mean "everyone who supports capitalism" we need a new word for what capitalist means. And considering "everyone who supports capitalism" is a group consisting basically only of liberals and fascists, I don't see why such a word is necessary. 99% of the time you would use this redefined form of capitalist, liberal would be sufficient.
I suspect that you are a pig with shit on its balls
You're just going on giant hostile rants because you can't admit that you don't know the basic definition of the word capitalist and then accusing me of "gatekeeping" and "purity testing" because I do know the definition of that word
A capitalist is a member of the class which owns the means of production under capitalism. Your racist Vietnam vet neighbor John isn't a capitalist no matter how much boot he licks or how shitty he is.
I wasn't replying to you liberal
I'm fairly sure they're talking about the image…
Dang, you got us you master rhetoritician. There has never been a nuclear war so there's no reason to think there may ever be a nuclear war. Gosh you're smart. Especially when your arguments alternate between smug inanity and barely controlled frothing at the mouth.
Of course they oppose it, they're just unable to prevent it
Why don't you use your own words?