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.

Oh please - Russians were amassing troops at the border in huge numbers and categorically denying they were intended for anything but military training.

You can’t blame Russia’s war of choice on lack of diplomatic efforts by the West.

There were no serious diplomatic offers in the table. Russia made clear their offer was for an Ukraine to roll over and accept being absorbed into Russia and to never join either Western Europe or NATO.

Putin thought their special military operation (illegal invasion) would be over in a few weeks.

Now Putin’s aemu are proven war criminals and retaliating in horrific ways against innocent civilians.

Diplomacy is not possible with war criminals.

It's pretty normal to not want a military base so close to your border. I mean the US would be vehemently opposed if Mexico wanted to join a former Warsaw pact and put their military base in, say, Tijuana.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You being a “pacifist” is essentially like people abstaining to vote for Hillary because they didn’t like her, which led to Donald Trump’s election.

You can’t always sit things out and just let them happen to you. So strap on a set.

It's not happening TO US. The United States.

You’re perfectly entitled to be scared. Everyone else can see the right thing is to back an ally who was attacked. It shores up our alliances with countries that represent the “free world”.

If you hadn’t noticed the world is increasingly drifting into multipolarity. You’ve got western nations and you’ve got authoritarian ones and the chasm is widening. Your stance of cowering in place and not helping choose democracy doesn’t bode well long term for the US.

I’m sorry you don’t grasp that or see that basically donating 1/100th the amount of our yearly defense budget and, mostly, our older outdated equipment to help battle this force of raging drunk, brutal dunces is a good investment for both our soft and hard power.

Again, we all want peace, but we are also America. We are a bastion of hope.

That's not true, though. The US maintains close, amiable relationships with the worst authoritarian regimes in the world. There is no daylight between the US and, for instance, the Arab Gulf dictatorships. What is your evidence that the chasm is widening? Make the case for the Russia-US stand if you must but don't pretend it's a global struggle of authoritarianism vs. democracy because that's not supported by facts.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You being a “pacifist” is essentially like people abstaining to vote for Hillary because they didn’t like her, which led to Donald Trump’s election.

You can’t always sit things out and just let them happen to you. So strap on a set.

It's not happening TO US. The United States.

You’re perfectly entitled to be scared. Everyone else can see the right thing is to back an ally who was attacked. It shores up our alliances with countries that represent the “free world”.

If you hadn’t noticed the world is increasingly drifting into multipolarity. You’ve got western nations and you’ve got authoritarian ones and the chasm is widening. Your stance of cowering in place and not helping choose democracy doesn’t bode well long term for the US.

I’m sorry you don’t grasp that or see that basically donating 1/100th the amount of our yearly defense budget and, mostly, our older outdated equipment to help battle this force of raging drunk, brutal dunces is a good investment for both our soft and hard power.

Again, we all want peace, but we are also America. We are a bastion of hope.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You being a “pacifist” is essentially like people abstaining to vote for Hillary because they didn’t like her, which led to Donald Trump’s election.

You can’t always sit things out and just let them happen to you. So strap on a set.

It's not happening TO US. The United States.

You’re perfectly entitled to be scared. Everyone else can see the right thing is to back an ally who was attacked. It shores up our alliances with countries that represent the “free world”.

If you hadn’t noticed the world is increasingly drifting into multipolarity. You’ve got western nations and you’ve got authoritarian ones and the chasm is widening. Your stance of cowering in place and not helping choose democracy doesn’t bode well long term for the US.

I’m sorry you don’t grasp that or see that basically donating 1/100th the amount of our yearly defense budget and, mostly, our older outdated equipment to help battle this force of raging drunk, brutal dunces is a good investment for both our soft and hard power.

Again, we all want peace, but we are also America. We are a bastion of hope.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please - Russians were amassing troops at the border in huge numbers and categorically denying they were intended for anything but military training.

You can’t blame Russia’s war of choice on lack of diplomatic efforts by the West.

There were no serious diplomatic offers in the table. Russia made clear their offer was for an Ukraine to roll over and accept being absorbed into Russia and to never join either Western Europe or NATO.

Putin thought their special military operation (illegal invasion) would be over in a few weeks.

Now Putin’s aemu are proven war criminals and retaliating in horrific ways against innocent civilians.

Diplomacy is not possible with war criminals.

What diplomatic efforts has the West made, exactly, to prevent the war?

It’s not really the US’s job to “prevent this war”. It was a unilateral attack on Ukraine from an aggressor (Russia).

You sound like a propaganda bot spewing Kremlin-fed reasoning. Essentially, that being that the war was “provoked” and “unpreventable” because of something Ukraine did. Ukraine did nothing wrong. So the only preventable thing would have been Russia not invading.

All they want is land, grain, access to the Black Sea, etc. It’s so obvious Putin wants to recreate the USSR. The free world order smartly didn’t stand by and just allow that power grab.

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.

Oh please - Russians were amassing troops at the border in huge numbers and categorically denying they were intended for anything but military training.

You can’t blame Russia’s war of choice on lack of diplomatic efforts by the West.

There were no serious diplomatic offers in the table. Russia made clear their offer was for an Ukraine to roll over and accept being absorbed into Russia and to never join either Western Europe or NATO.

Putin thought their special military operation (illegal invasion) would be over in a few weeks.

Now Putin’s aemu are proven war criminals and retaliating in horrific ways against innocent civilians.

Diplomacy is not possible with war criminals.

What diplomatic efforts has the West made, exactly, to prevent the war?

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.

You being a “pacifist” is essentially like people abstaining to vote for Hillary because they didn’t like her, which led to Donald Trump’s election.

You can’t always sit things out and just let them happen to you. So strap on a set.

It's not happening TO US. The United States.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please - Russians were amassing troops at the border in huge numbers and categorically denying they were intended for anything but military training.

You can’t blame Russia’s war of choice on lack of diplomatic efforts by the West.

There were no serious diplomatic offers in the table. Russia made clear their offer was for an Ukraine to roll over and accept being absorbed into Russia and to never join either Western Europe or NATO.

Putin thought their special military operation (illegal invasion) would be over in a few weeks.

Now Putin’s aemu are proven war criminals and retaliating in horrific ways against innocent civilians.

Diplomacy is not possible with war criminals.

What diplomatic efforts has the West made, exactly, to prevent the war?

Sanctions

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.

Oh please - Russians were amassing troops at the border in huge numbers and categorically denying they were intended for anything but military training.

You can’t blame Russia’s war of choice on lack of diplomatic efforts by the West.

There were no serious diplomatic offers in the table. Russia made clear their offer was for an Ukraine to roll over and accept being absorbed into Russia and to never join either Western Europe or NATO.

Putin thought their special military operation (illegal invasion) would be over in a few weeks.

Now Putin’s aemu are proven war criminals and retaliating in horrific ways against innocent civilians.

Diplomacy is not possible with war criminals.

What diplomatic efforts has the West made, exactly, to prevent the war?

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.

Oh please - Russians were amassing troops at the border in huge numbers and categorically denying they were intended for anything but military training.

You can’t blame Russia’s war of choice on lack of diplomatic efforts by the West.

There were no serious diplomatic offers in the table. Russia made clear their offer was for an Ukraine to roll over and accept being absorbed into Russia and to never join either Western Europe or NATO.

Putin thought their special military operation (illegal invasion) would be over in a few weeks.

Now Putin’s aemu are proven war criminals and retaliating in horrific ways against innocent civilians.

Diplomacy is not possible with war criminals.

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.

Oh please - Russians were amassing troops at the border in huge numbers and categorically denying they were intended for anything but military training.

You can’t blame Russia’s war of choice on lack of diplomatic efforts by the West.

There were no serious diplomatic offers in the table. Russia made clear their offer was for an Ukraine to roll over and accept being absorbed into Russia and to never join either Western Europe or NATO.

Putin thought their special military operation (illegal invasion) would be over in a few weeks.

Now Putin’s aemu are proven war criminals and retaliating in horrific ways against innocent civilians.

Diplomacy is not possible with war criminals.

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: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.

You being a “pacifist” is essentially like people abstaining to vote for Hillary because they didn’t like her, which led to Donald Trump’s election.

You can’t always sit things out and just let them happen to you. So strap on a set.

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.

You being a “pacifist” is essentially like people abstaining to vote for Hillary because they didn’t like her, which led to Donald Trump’s election.

You can’t always sit things out and just let them happen to you. So strap on a set.