THE UKRAINIAN ARMY HAS BEEN DEFEATED. WHAT’S LEFT IS MOP-UP

What's wrong with supporting one side or the other in a war? I see nothing immoral about that.

 

We have the clips of both Biden and Kamala paving the way for vaccine hesitancy before they "won". They were the first anti-vaxxers, before it was even created.

 

Nothing, if one plans to fight in it. I have determined that the VAST majority of my fellow citizens do not wish to go to the Ukrainian trenches. But they cheer it on from their couches. It's particularly disgusting, especially for those who have been to war.

 

Simply false. Like everything else you post.

 

Again, how is it immoral to support one side in a conflict? You have simply repeated the assertion without justification.

 

I'm sure someone can link the clips. If not, it will be a couple of weeks before I'm on a PC to do it myself.

 

They would be misleading clips, of course. I know they expressed a lack of trust in anything Trump might suggest, not in the vaccines that were developed, tested and finally approved, which you have erroneously labeled as "experimental."

 

Participating in a war is immoral itself, no matter what the justification. The things that one must do in war are immoral. For example, in order to win, one must censor their own people. Immoral. One must detain people who don't deserve to be detained. One must acknowledge that one's forces WILL kill innocents. Immoral. There is nothing moral about war. A moral person engages in it because they feel there is no other choice. It represents a failure in human reason.

If all of the above is immoral to participate in, then surely it is immoral to cheer it on from afar. From afar, you have a choice.

 

I believe one quote from Kamala was: "Would you trust a vaccine made under Trump?" But I'm not positive of the exact wording until I can look it up. It was far worse than anything I've said about the vaccine, because it was clear that her hesitancy was based on hatred of a political opponent, whereas my hesitancy was based in 100 year old science.

 

I would not say it's a failure in human reason. Humans reason themselves into all sorts of things, including wars. Putler reasoned himself into this, for instance.

Is it immoral to defend yourself against aggression? I suppose that could be argued either way, especially when it involves deadly conflict involving more than one assailant and defender. Defense against such aggression necessitates killing the same as the aggression itself does, and it inevitably harms and kills people who want nothing to do with the conflict. I can appreciate viewing participation in this as immoral, but it does not change the fact that one group has chosen to use deadly force against another group in order to achieve some political end, and I don't see black and white answer to the question of the morality of resisting that force with like force and killing the invading killers, at times leading also to suffering and death among those not directly involved. This conflict was forced on the people of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation and its president when he ordered this invasion. The only choice for the Ukrainians is to fight with deadly force or allow themselves to be conquered and forced under the authoritarian rule of the power structure behind this invasion. I don't see how it would be any more moral to allow that, even if it involves using deadly force that at times causes suffering and death among people not directly involved in the conflict.

Your argument might work to argue why war itself should never be allowed, but once it has been started, there is little point in arguing about the morality of it, because it's already happening and there is no outcome that does not involve some kind of evil, whether it is a conflict that kills many and harms many more or allowing one group to conquer and control another against their will. It would be foolish to allow an aggressor to take whatever he pleases with no resistance. Only if those under such an authority figure had the moral imperative and the political power not to launch an invasion and start a war in the first place despite being ordered to do so could this be avoided. Now evil must be resisted with evil, violence with violence. So it has been since time immemorial for our species. So it may continue for as long as humanity exists.

 

What 100-year-old science is relevant in this case?

 

Huge fail Durandal.. 100% they were experimental .. that propaganda you were gulping down unchecked has been corrected .. not near the testing normally done

Big mistake .. don't be talking science to someone who has made the aucacious claim that there is no Propaganda/Censorship in Western media. .. then dispite numerous examples .. including obvious ones from Covid .. google-FB , but also from things like war in Iraq .. Syria . .. standard Pentagon Propaganda Ops -- maintains this crucified position.

but while on the topic .. not sure about the 100 year science .. but just basic 50 year science Swine Flue Vax in the 1970s ..pulled from market when Severe Adverse Reaction (SVR) was 1 in 100,000.

Risk of harm from Pfizer/Moderna (SVR) 1 in 800. Over 100 times greater than the swine flue vax that was too harmfull .. yet we were told "Perfectly Safe" benefit far outweighs risk of harm ... now proven that what is "Perfectly Safe" for most people is getting covid.. Omicron no more harmfull than the ave Flue Season for healthy people. and no one who has had Covid "natural immunity" should be getting anywhere near the vax .. except perhaps someone who is so immune compromized ... so near deaths door .. that it doesn't matter.

 

Another top of chart logic fail .. and complete moral fail .. lest one is a Socio path.

So lets Tease this out... Pol Pot's war in Cambodia .. you saw nothing immoral in supporting Pol pot ?

What can I say .. sometimes folks should think a bit before posting .. asking themselves .. does this make a wit of coherent sense.

 

Ukrainian Artillery Hunts Russian Howitzers As Battle For Bakhmut Grinds On


Ukrainian defenders hammering the orcs with one of their own artillery guns, one captured during the liberation of Izyum.

 

I'd say it's about as moral as supporting Putler's war in Ukraine. Might want to ask @Bill Carson what he thinks about that.

 

I just kept it simple. You don't give your kid the measles shot while they have measles. You don't get the flu shot as you are suffering from the flu. It's known for 100 years or so that the timing of vaccinations can harm.

So when they wanted to line us up like cattle at Amazon to get jabbed, I demanded testing first. It was the apparent lack of science that initially made me skeptical. I say apparent, because I underestimated their lack of humanity. I was thinking they were knowingly risking us out of panic and concern. Now I know that the real reason for their machine like, reckless manner of employee vaccination was that Biden gave them complete legal immunity to anything associated with the vaccine.

How does this relate to the topic? Spirit. I want to win. The people's spirit is a major factor to measure when comparing potential sides in a war. Equally important to both the country's military and what land/infrastructure that military currently controls. That's the triad: spirit/army/land. We don't have the spirit. You can gain the moral high ground to get spirit. This can be done legitimately (2001 Afghanistan), or artificially (2003 Iraq). I am of the opinion that artificial spirit generation is not an option this time. We have to get the moral high ground. Without a shadow of doubt. Ukraine gives me lots of doubts.

Part of that lack of spirit is how Biden talked to millions of us about a damn shot. Repeated public shaming has consequences for spirit. So does dishonorably withdrawing from a 20 year war in which, I remind you, we said the same thing to our allies, "As long as it takes..."

 

Everything!? I go weeks at a time without posting. I have only made several dozen comments on Ukraine, but I recall several that praised Zelensky's leadership. Everything?

 

We didn't have 100ks of troops in the Baltics, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria when I said it week 1. I at least considered the other side's argument that Putin planned to go further. Enough to warrant the cost to me the taxpayer of a massive, long term deployment for deterrence.

And a Putin stooge wouldn't praise Zelensky in the first couple of months. A Putin stooge wouldn't post a warning, in this forum, the night before the invasion to not underestimate the element of spirit in war (referring to the Ukrainian potential).

 

Everything I've seen, anyway.

 

I don't support Putin .. but even if I did what is immoral is you making false accusations . and or justifying your immoral position on the basis that others do it .. "Well Pol Pot thought that way so I might as well"

Just absurd mental fallacious hoop de loops going on here - to justify "Pol Pot kind of nasty" which one might claim leads us into the realm of Sociopath .. but, I don't think that .. there must be some lesser demons hiding somewhere .. somethign that has some possibility of exorcism ... at least one poison lizard we can pull out.

 

You do support Putler, though. You keep repeating his lies, after all.

You also seem to support his war in Ukraine. Do you? Would say it is wrong and should not have been started? Since you keep repeating Putler's Nazi lies in particular, it would seem you feel it is justified.

 

[QUOTE=

 

Who is the spewer of Lies in the Room .. deception with every post .. all he can do is name call in response to his support for Pol Pot . .and other heinous atrocity ..and anti american position.

Who is the one living in a lie mate .. who has publicly proven does not know what propaganda is.

What lies ... Tell us D .. what are these "Lies" you claim I have spoken .. or is it you the one who is living the lie mate

 

You are, mate. You are.

 

I am what Durandal .. come on now .. spit it out ... whats on your mind ... Lets get the name calling off your chest and then you can tell us why you think Pol Pot is so wonderful .. and how theres no "Propaganda" or Censorship in the west . and how disingenuous oblivion is going ?