Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, under which conditions is it legit to be a pacifist? Do you think anyone can legitimately be anti-war? Or are they automatically a bot or a victim of propaganda?

The only country's foreign policy that I have a vested interest in is my own. I get a vote. I can call my elected representative. I can try to be persuasive to those around me to convince them to do the same.

It’s like with race, the moment you dare say something that is not a slogan, the Internet jumps at you

More likely that your position of “pacifism”, which is clearly transparent and a poor choice and essentially is you advocating to leave Ukrainians out to dry, is the stupid and informed by right wing news.

We get it. Your news sources are telling you to like Russia, probably because you are conservative, strongly religious (Christian), and have a natural proclivity toward Russia’s particular brand of authoritarian/strongman/anti-gay/pro-traditional values.

So to you, Ukraine getting attacked and taken over by Russia isn’t that bad because they’re all sort of Russian anyway right? And you don’t really mind Putin? And like, the US totally wouldn’t look bad to its European allies if it simply turned tail and let everyone else fend for themselves right?

No dude. The best path is to show support. Show we are a beacon of hope. Not your little weak, impulsive poorly reasoned, weasel nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying people are afraid of nuclear war is not the sick burn you think it is.

Damn right I am afraid of nukes, as is anyone with half a brain and the will to live.

Glad the poster who lives next to the Pentagon is such a nihilist they don't care if they are vaporized, but some of us prefer diplomacy and putting pressure on both Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiating table.

I’m totally with you. Why hasn’t diplomacy been priority #1?

Well, that’s a good question and let’s unpack it.

Diplomacy.

That’s where nations hash things out cordially with each other.

Russia unilaterally attacked Ukraine in the hopes of subsuming it back into the old fold of a USSR fever dream.

Ukraine said no and fought back.

So what diplomacy do you speak of when Russia is still attacking? If they left, there would be diplomacy. Allowing their country to be carved up and offered away for peace isn’t very diplomatic don’t you think? Do you think?

Russia submitted a few proposals before the invasion. They were ignored. Then there was Istanbul but Mr Johnson decided the West is not ready to stop the war so he flew down to slap Z back.

Of course, a few months later he wrote that Russia should go back to the 2022 line of contact (note the contrast with”get all your land back!” early on) but in the meantime, hundreds of thousands have suffered. As Mr Johnson continues to enjoy his moated mansion in Oxfordshire. It’s all fun and games to shill for war when the consequences for you personally are nil.

Anonymous wrote:So, under which conditions is it legit to be a pacifist? Do you think anyone can legitimately be anti-war? Or are they automatically a bot or a victim of propaganda?

The only country's foreign policy that I have a vested interest in is my own. I get a vote. I can call my elected representative. I can try to be persuasive to those around me to convince them to do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, under which conditions is it legit to be a pacifist? Do you think anyone can legitimately be anti-war? Or are they automatically a bot or a victim of propaganda?

The only country's foreign policy that I have a vested interest in is my own. I get a vote. I can call my elected representative. I can try to be persuasive to those around me to convince them to do the same.

It’s like with race, the moment you dare say something that is not a slogan, the Internet jumps at you

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, under which conditions is it legit to be a pacifist? Do you think anyone can legitimately be anti-war? Or are they automatically a bot or a victim of propaganda?

The only country's foreign policy that I have a vested interest in is my own. I get a vote. I can call my elected representative. I can try to be persuasive to those around me to convince them to do the same.

What's confusing is that you are calling for the victim, the one being attacked, to stop instead of the aggressor, the one doing the attacking.

That's not pacificism.

Anonymous wrote:So, under which conditions is it legit to be a pacifist? Do you think anyone can legitimately be anti-war? Or are they automatically a bot or a victim of propaganda?

The only country's foreign policy that I have a vested interest in is my own. I get a vote. I can call my elected representative. I can try to be persuasive to those around me to convince them to do the same.

Anonymous wrote:So, under which conditions is it legit to be a pacifist? Do you think anyone can legitimately be anti-war? Or are they automatically a bot or a victim of propaganda?

The only country's foreign policy that I have a vested interest in is my own. I get a vote. I can call my elected representative. I can try to be persuasive to those around me to convince them to do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying people are afraid of nuclear war is not the sick burn you think it is.

Damn right I am afraid of nukes, as is anyone with half a brain and the will to live.

Glad the poster who lives next to the Pentagon is such a nihilist they don't care if they are vaporized, but some of us prefer diplomacy and putting pressure on both Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiating table.

I’m totally with you. Why hasn’t diplomacy been priority #1?

Well, that’s a good question and let’s unpack it.

Diplomacy.

That’s where nations hash things out cordially with each other.

Russia unilaterally attacked Ukraine in the hopes of subsuming it back into the old fold of a USSR fever dream.

Ukraine said no and fought back.

So what diplomacy do you speak of when Russia is still attacking? If they left, there would be diplomacy. Allowing their country to be carved up and offered away for peace isn’t very diplomatic don’t you think? Do you think?

Russia submitted a few proposals before the invasion. They were ignored. Then there was Istanbul but Mr Johnson decided the West is not ready to stop the war so he flew down to slap Z back.

Of course, a few months later he wrote that Russia should go back to the 2022 line of contact (note the contrast with”get all your land back!” early on) but in the meantime, hundreds of thousands have suffered. As Mr Johnson continues to enjoy his moated mansion in Oxfordshire. It’s all fun and games to shill for war when the consequences for you personally are nil.

The only shill around here is you. Go lick Putin’s boot. Pathetic.

The consequences to you personally are nil, too. Food for thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying people are afraid of nuclear war is not the sick burn you think it is.

Damn right I am afraid of nukes, as is anyone with half a brain and the will to live.

Glad the poster who lives next to the Pentagon is such a nihilist they don't care if they are vaporized, but some of us prefer diplomacy and putting pressure on both Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiating table.

I’m totally with you. Why hasn’t diplomacy been priority #1?

Well, that’s a good question and let’s unpack it.

Diplomacy.

That’s where nations hash things out cordially with each other.

Russia unilaterally attacked Ukraine in the hopes of subsuming it back into the old fold of a USSR fever dream.

Ukraine said no and fought back.

So what diplomacy do you speak of when Russia is still attacking? If they left, there would be diplomacy. Allowing their country to be carved up and offered away for peace isn’t very diplomatic don’t you think? Do you think?

Russia submitted a few proposals before the invasion. They were ignored. Then there was Istanbul but Mr Johnson decided the West is not ready to stop the war so he flew down to slap Z back.

Of course, a few months later he wrote that Russia should go back to the 2022 line of contact (note the contrast with”get all your land back!” early on) but in the meantime, hundreds of thousands have suffered. As Mr Johnson continues to enjoy his moated mansion in Oxfordshire. It’s all fun and games to shill for war when the consequences for you personally are nil.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying people are afraid of nuclear war is not the sick burn you think it is.

Damn right I am afraid of nukes, as is anyone with half a brain and the will to live.

Glad the poster who lives next to the Pentagon is such a nihilist they don't care if they are vaporized, but some of us prefer diplomacy and putting pressure on both Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiating table.

I’m totally with you. Why hasn’t diplomacy been priority #1?

Well, that’s a good question and let’s unpack it.

Diplomacy.

That’s where nations hash things out cordially with each other.

Russia unilaterally attacked Ukraine in the hopes of subsuming it back into the old fold of a USSR fever dream.

Ukraine said no and fought back.

So what diplomacy do you speak of when Russia is still attacking? If they left, there would be diplomacy. Allowing their country to be carved up and offered away for peace isn’t very diplomatic don’t you think? Do you think?

Russia submitted a few proposals before the invasion. They were ignored. Then there was Istanbul but Mr Johnson decided the West is not ready to stop the war so he flew down to slap Z back.

Of course, a few months later he wrote that Russia should go back to the 2022 line of contact (note the contrast with”get all your land back!” early on) but in the meantime, hundreds of thousands have suffered. As Mr Johnson continues to enjoy his moated mansion in Oxfordshire. It’s all fun and games to shill for war when the consequences for you personally are nil.

The only shill around here is you. Go lick Putin’s boot. Pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying people are afraid of nuclear war is not the sick burn you think it is.

Damn right I am afraid of nukes, as is anyone with half a brain and the will to live.

Glad the poster who lives next to the Pentagon is such a nihilist they don't care if they are vaporized, but some of us prefer diplomacy and putting pressure on both Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiating table.

I’m totally with you. Why hasn’t diplomacy been priority #1?

Well, that’s a good question and let’s unpack it.

Diplomacy.

That’s where nations hash things out cordially with each other.

Russia unilaterally attacked Ukraine in the hopes of subsuming it back into the old fold of a USSR fever dream.

Ukraine said no and fought back.

So what diplomacy do you speak of when Russia is still attacking? If they left, there would be diplomacy. Allowing their country to be carved up and offered away for peace isn’t very diplomatic don’t you think? Do you think?

Russia submitted a few proposals before the invasion. They were ignored. Then there was Istanbul but Mr Johnson decided the West is not ready to stop the war so he flew down to slap Z back.

Of course, a few months later he wrote that Russia should go back to the 2022 line of contact (note the contrast with”get all your land back!” early on) but in the meantime, hundreds of thousands have suffered. As Mr Johnson continues to enjoy his moated mansion in Oxfordshire. It’s all fun and games to shill for war when the consequences for you personally are nil.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying people are afraid of nuclear war is not the sick burn you think it is.

Damn right I am afraid of nukes, as is anyone with half a brain and the will to live.

Glad the poster who lives next to the Pentagon is such a nihilist they don't care if they are vaporized, but some of us prefer diplomacy and putting pressure on both Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiating table.

I’m totally with you. Why hasn’t diplomacy been priority #1?

Well, that’s a good question and let’s unpack it.

Diplomacy.

That’s where nations hash things out cordially with each other.

Russia unilaterally attacked Ukraine in the hopes of subsuming it back into the old fold of a USSR fever dream.

Ukraine said no and fought back.

So what diplomacy do you speak of when Russia is still attacking? If they left, there would be diplomacy. Allowing their country to be carved up and offered away for peace isn’t very diplomatic don’t you think? Do you think?