Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddahaid
I don't want to get into an argument about conspiracies of "globalist-woke" agendas since I see it as more about foreign policy goals than internal US political name calling.
I side with Ukraine mostly because I see Putin's Russia as an agressor state starting a war on thin pretense of the boogie man neo nazi as if the Ukraine was massing battalions of nazi criminals on the border preparing to invade or some such nonsense. Anyway, name one war that didn't have atrocities on both sides?
"*edit: I had to come back and add this: Shooting Prisoners of War in the knees is "wounding"?"
POW's were routinely shot dead in WW1 when they were a liability to a mission.
|
I understand your point of view on the war and it's such an immense issue and there's probably at least 5 things in your response (and many in my posts) that we could get into and argue and debate endlessly.
So these two points. I'm not trying to engage in name-calling, I'm just trying to define what I see. I think an important part of how we got to this war started with Putin 10 or so years ago was about trying to change racism and discrimination in Russia and defined Putin as the main target. That's where people like Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama really seem to have started and where I think people like Joe Biden come from. That is what I'm calling the "globalist-woke" movement. People who think it's our job to socially redesign other cultures in the world, like in the Tucker Carlsons piece on Afghanistan and I think it's behind the goal of getting Ukraine into NATO and ultimately confronting and defeating Russia. A worthy cause, but I don't think it's really our job, this is not the best way to do it and how much we are risking is proportionately unacceptably dangerous.
There's racism and discrimination all over this world why did they think it was a priority to try and fix it in Russia?
Second, I can't say I agree with the shooting of POW's during WW1 on a mission. But there is at least some justification, being on a mission they were still in 'combat' and the POW's were a threat to their survival so on those grounds you could still say technically they were "enemy combatants" to justify killing them.
But how does that relate to committing a war crime of shooting POW's in the knees which I can only define as torturing prisoners?
-Tim