War in Ukraine

[LSU-SIU]

Warmongering? Calling for the defense of a country under attack is the opposite of that. Defending the territory of ukraine isn't the same as invading russia.

I'm sorry you fail to see how the implications of losing ukraine could cause us to fight a much more difficult war afterwards.

I'll wait while you tell the peaceful countries of the world that they should be helping Syria with their foreign invader problem.

 

[volbound1700]

I'll wait while you tell the peaceful countries of the world that they should be helping Syria with their foreign invader problem.

I think that was already done although Syria has far more issues than foreign invaders. It is basically turning into a failed state.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I think that was already done although Syria has far more issues than foreign invaders. It is basically turning into a failed state.

People preaching about "invaders" and "sovereignty" and such are not on the high ground. (Also, wouldn't a part of its current state be linked to the attempts of the west to bring the government down including sanctions.) A United States or western citizen telling the world who its okay to invade is kind of humorous. Nobody gives a **** about the Ukraine, never did, just like they don't care about X country that has been invaded.

 

[volbound1700]

People preaching about "invaders" and "sovereignty" and such are not on the high ground. (Also, wouldn't a part of its current state be linked to the attempts of the west to bring the government down including sanctions.) A United States or western citizen telling the world who its okay to invade is kind of humorous. Nobody gives a **** about the Ukraine, never did, just like they don't care about X country that has been invaded.

I am fine with us telling the world what to do. We are the World Super Power and brought Democracy to Millions. Are we flawed, sure? Who isn't?

A HUGE difference between the United States from 1776-1950 and the United States since is our lack of belief in our system, principles, etc. We were basically undefeated in wars prior to 1950 and haven't won a meaningful war since. We can't project our influence overseas or change people when our own people stab us in the back here on the home front.

If people like you were around in 1942, 1862, 1777, etc., I would be afraid for our nation's future.

 

[BeardedVol]

the defense of that country in your book involves war, thus you are warmongering.

No.

 

[volbound1700]

No.
View attachment 639404

This thread is just full of extremes when that is really not the case.

I am totally fine and aligned with the USA condemning Russia for going into Ukraine and engaging in economic sanctions.

I am not for sending USA troops or entering the conflict in any meaningful way.


I feel like this thread has a Pro-Russian extreme that blames USA for the issue and then you have a Pro-Ukrainian extreme that is all about jumping into the war and investing more money into it.

 

[LouderVol]

No.
View attachment 639404

We would be joining a war. that is an act of aggression with no casus belli to justify our involvement. there has been plenty of calls for aggression against Russia ITT.

if the US or NATO was attacked we would be acting out of defense. and it would not be an act of aggression to go to war at that point.

 

[BeardedVol]

We would be joining a war. that is an act of aggression with no casus belli to justify our involvement. there has been plenty of calls for aggression against Russia ITT.

if the US or NATO was attacked we would be acting out of defense. and it would not be an act of aggression to go to war at that point.

Supporting Ukraine in defense of their nation by an invader is not "warmongering", not even by the broadest and loosest definition.

 

[volbound1700]

We would be joining a war. that is an act of aggression with no casus belli to justify our involvement. there has been plenty of calls for aggression against Russia ITT.

if the US or NATO was attacked we would be acting out of defense. and it would not be an act of aggression to go to war at that point.

While I agree that we shouldn't get involved in this, I am curious what your thoughts were about UK and France declaring war on Germany on September 3, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland? Were UK and France being too aggressive?

 

[LouderVol]

Supporting Ukraine in defense of their nation by an invader is not "warmongering", not even by the broadest and loosest definition.

you are completely changing the context. calling for us to join a war, without us being attacked first, is warmongering. Us actually joining the war, as you mis-phrased it, is not warmongering, that would be war-making.

but to the non-semantic overall point, yes it is. joining a war is an act of aggression unless WE are attacked first. or we had a direct alliance that pulls us in. no such requirement exists with Ukraine.

Think back to the Korean War. The Chinese were 100% aggressors when they attacked us. even though they were stepping into to defend the North Koreans. this would be the same thing.

it is possible for there to be multiple aggressors, on either side of the fight, in a war.

 

[BeardedVol]

you are completely changing the context. calling for us to join a war, without us being attacked first, is warmongering. Us actually joining the war, as you mis-phrased it, is not warmongering, that would be war-making.

but to the non-semantic overall point, yes it is. joining a war is an act of aggression unless WE are attacked first. or we had a direct alliance that pulls us in. no such requirement exists with Ukraine.

Think back to the Korean War. The Chinese were 100% aggressors when they attacked us. even though they were stepping into to defend the North Koreans. this would be the same thing.

it is possible for there to be multiple aggressors, on either side of the fight, in a war.

It's not. The literal definition of 'warmongering', is supporting "aggression".

Ukraine the victim of Russian aggression, cannot be expected to not defend itself from Russia's aggression, nor can any country that aids them in expelling the Russian invaders be considered 'warmongers', since Ukraine is defending itself from Russia's aggression, not the other way around.

It's for that same reason that sending arms to Ukraine to defend itself is acceptable, while sending arms to Russia is in violation of international law.

Why China Giving Military Assistance to Russia Would Violate International Law

Editor's note: This article is also available at Just Security in Chinese.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[LouderVol]

While I agree that we shouldn't get involved in this, I am curious what your thoughts were about UK and France declaring war on Germany on September 3, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland? Were UK and France being too aggressive?

France was an aggressor. The British had guaranteed Polish sovereignty incase they were attacked, but the French did not. They were just allied with Britain and jumped into the fight themselves. not sure what you mean by "too aggressive" but I would say so. They jumped into a war they weren't ready to fight and got a lot of their men killed because they weren't ready for the fight.

France and Britain also gave money and weapons to the Poles before you try to make a Chamberlain comparison. Churchill was the over aggressive one who went against his generals recommendations and got the French and British kicked off the mainland.

a more cautious approach probably keeps the french in the war. which would have saved lives twice, those lost in the German break thrus, and then those lost retaking France. would have also tied down more Germans, maybe keeping them out of the USSR or somewhere else. those saved lives, equipment and weapons, would have also been available to help fight the axis elsewhere, Greece or Africa. a stronger and more prepared France and Britain wouldn't have needed to rely on the US for so much support, and would have been more capable in the attacks against the Germans which would have also saved more American lives.

 

[BeardedVol]

France was an aggressor. The British had guaranteed Polish sovereignty incase they were attacked, but the French did not. They were just allied with Britain and jumped into the fight themselves. not sure what you mean by "too aggressive" but I would say so. They jumped into a war they weren't ready to fight and got a lot of their men killed because they weren't ready for the fight.

France and Britain also gave money and weapons to the Poles before you try to make a Chamberlain comparison. Churchill was the over aggressive one who went against his generals recommendations and got the French and British kicked off the mainland.

a more cautious approach probably keeps the french in the war. which would have saved lives twice, those lost in the German break thrus, and then those lost retaking France. would have also tied down more Germans, maybe keeping them out of the USSR or somewhere else. those saved lives, equipment and weapons, would have also been available to help fight the axis elsewhere, Greece or Africa. a stronger and more prepared France and Britain wouldn't have needed to rely on the US for so much support, and would have been more capable in the attacks against the Germans which would have also saved more American lives.

The Kasprzycki–Gamelin Convention, signed in May of 1939, and ratified 4 days after Germany invaded Poland.

 

[volbound1700]

France was an aggressor. The British had guaranteed Polish sovereignty incase they were attacked, but the French did not. They were just allied with Britain and jumped into the fight themselves. not sure what you mean by "too aggressive" but I would say so. They jumped into a war they weren't ready to fight and got a lot of their men killed because they weren't ready for the fight.

France and Britain also gave money and weapons to the Poles before you try to make a Chamberlain comparison. Churchill was the over aggressive one who went against his generals recommendations and got the French and British kicked off the mainland.

a more cautious approach probably keeps the french in the war. which would have saved lives twice, those lost in the German break thrus, and then those lost retaking France. would have also tied down more Germans, maybe keeping them out of the USSR or somewhere else. those saved lives, equipment and weapons, would have also been available to help fight the axis elsewhere, Greece or Africa. a stronger and more prepared France and Britain wouldn't have needed to rely on the US for so much support, and would have been more capable in the attacks against the Germans which would have also saved more American lives.

Actually that is an entirely incorrect statement. France actually had a treaty guaranteeing Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia (which they broke), and Yugoslavia going back to the 1920s.

Second paragraph is highly inaccurate as well because Churchill didn't even become Prime Minister until the day the Battle of France started. Basically everything was in place for the Battle of France prior to Churchill having any power and he basically could not plan anything other than Dunkirk and beg the French to keep fighting. Churchill deserves all the praise he gets and even more if you really read up on him and what he went through during that period.

I am not sure where you get your history to be honest as this is well discussed in WW2 forums and videos. Heck, even the movie the Darkest Hour goes into it.

For UK and France to be more prepared for Germany, they would have had to be more aggressive leading up to the war. They had a policy of appeasement which is something a lot of you advocate for on here. It is very easy to be against any involvement at all. If you had been around in the period, you would have followed the same path that UK and France historically followed.

 

[LouderVol]

It's not. The literal definition of 'warmongering', is supporting "aggression".

Ukraine the victim of Russian aggression, cannot be expected to not defend itself from Russia's aggression, nor can any country that aids them in expelling the Russian invaders be considered 'warmongers', since Ukraine is defending itself from Russia's aggression, not the other way around.

It's for that same reason that sending arms to Ukraine to defend itself is acceptable, while sending arms to Russia is in violation of international law.

Why China Giving Military Assistance to Russia Would Violate International Law

Editor's note: This article is also available at Just Security in Chinese.

www.justsecurity.org

yes and Ukraine would never be considered the aggressors. I have never claimed them to be aggressors nor warmongers.

us joining the war is an escalation, which is an act of aggression. supporting that aggressive act of joining a war that doesn't involve us is warmongering. it doesn't matter if Ukraine can or can not defend themselves on their own. that is a completely arbitrary point to the discussion. another nation joining in would still be an act of aggression towards Russia. thus warmongering.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We declare war against Japan in a defensive act. Germany then declares war on the US coming to the aid of Japan, making Germany the aggressors in our war against them too.

you didn't address the Chinese in the Korean war. they were clearly aggressors despite joining the defense of another nation. why? because they weren't part of the war, they joined it. making them the aggressors. and the support of that aggression would make them warmongers.

Desert Storm, the US was 100% aggressors. even though we came to free Kuwait.

if you are so found of definitions you need to go look up aggression since your definition uses that phrase. "the action or an act of attacking without provocation." we have not been provoked.

 

[McDad]

I’m against sending US military personnel in any OR scenario. If it ratchets up that high that burden falls on Europe before any other western powers.

@Orangeburst I'm not in this thread much but this is my vote as well.

 

[LouderVol]

The Kasprzycki–Gamelin Convention, signed in May of 1939, and ratified 4 days after Germany invaded Poland.

lol, like I said the French were aggressors. hard to declare a defensive alliance AFTER the fact.

the previous agreement that was actually in place at the time Germany invaded poland didn't require French to make war on Germany, from your own link: "n attack on Poland would make France keep lines of communication free and Germany in check but not require it to send troops or to declare war"

 

[volbound1700]

yes and Ukraine would never be considered the aggressors. I have never claimed them to be aggressors nor warmongers.

us joining the war is an escalation, which is an act of aggression. supporting that aggressive act of joining a war that doesn't involve us is warmongering. it doesn't matter if Ukraine can or can not defend themselves on their own. that is a completely arbitrary point to the discussion. another nation joining in would still be an act of aggression towards Russia. thus warmongering.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We declare war against Japan in a defensive act. Germany then declares war on the US coming to the aid of Japan, making Germany the aggressors in our war against them too.

you didn't address the Chinese in the Korean war. they were clearly aggressors despite joining the defense of another nation. why? because they weren't part of the war, they joined it. making them the aggressors. and the support of that aggression would make them warmongers.

Desert Storm, the US was 100% aggressors. even though we came to free Kuwait.

if you are so found of definitions you need to go look up aggression since your definition uses that phrase. "the action or an act of attacking without provocation." we have not been provoked.

Not really. USA was asked by both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to intervene and did not topple Saddam or change anything in Iraq. They had a limited war goal of freeing Kuwait and accomplished that. It is probably our best fought conflict since 1950 in that it clearly achieved its war goal/aims (probably because it had limited aims/goals that played upon our strengths).

It was also universally approved by the UN and all other major organizations. So basically all the world at that time, outside of a few rogue states, disagrees with your comment.

Now if you were to argue that this war cause us to get into a challenging relationship with Iraq and kept us engaged in the Middle East for a decade and a half, and therefore wasn't the best move by the US Government, I am open ear. To say we were the aggressor, however, is flat out wrong.

 

[BeardedVol]

yes and Ukraine would never be considered the aggressors. I have never claimed them to be aggressors nor warmongers.

us joining the war is an escalation, which is an act of aggression. supporting that aggressive act of joining a war that doesn't involve us is warmongering. it doesn't matter if Ukraine can or can not defend themselves on their own. that is a completely arbitrary point to the discussion. another nation joining in would still be an act of aggression towards Russia. thus warmongering.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We declare war against Japan in a defensive act. Germany then declares war on the US coming to the aid of Japan, making Germany the aggressors in our war against them too.

you didn't address the Chinese in the Korean war. they were clearly aggressors despite joining the defense of another nation. why? because they weren't part of the war, they joined it. making them the aggressors. and the support of that aggression would make them warmongers.

Desert Storm, the US was 100% aggressors. even though we came to free Kuwait.

if you are so found of definitions you need to go look up aggression since your definition uses that phrase. "the action or an act of attacking without provocation." we have not been provoked.

Aiding a country that is actively being invaded, is not "attacking without provocation" in any sense of the word or concept of what "warmongering" entails.

By your bizarre definition, NATO article 5 would make every country not directly attacked, an "aggressive warmonger" for aiding the member who was directly attacked.

Why do I need to a "address the Chinese in the Korean war", South Korea didn't invade the North, so no, China was not "joining in the defense of another nation", they joined the aggressor.

No the US was not the "aggressor" in Desert Storm.

You have some seriously bizarre takes on historical events, that aren't supported by reality.

I understand you are opposed to the United States aiding Ukraine, but there's no need to try to retcon history to support your position.

 

[volbound1700]

lol, like I said the French were aggressors. hard to declare a defensive alliance AFTER the fact.

the previous agreement that was actually in place at the time Germany invaded poland didn't require French to make war on Germany, from your own link: "n attack on Poland would make France keep lines of communication free and Germany in check but not require it to send troops or to declare war"

Read my post, they didn't. However, even if you were right. France signed an Alliance with UK that obligated to join UK when the UK entered the war.

 

[BeardedVol]

lol, like I said the French were aggressors. hard to declare a defensive alliance AFTER the fact.

the previous agreement that was actually in place at the time Germany invaded poland didn't require French to make war on Germany, from your own link: "n attack on Poland would make France keep lines of communication free and Germany in check but not require it to send troops or to declare war"

The treaty was already signed, Germany attacked Poland before it was ratified.

You are literally the only person I've ever talked to that believes France was an 'aggressor' in World War 2.

 

[volbound1700]

The treaty was already signed, Germany attacked Poland before it was ratified.

You are literally the only person I've ever talked to that believes France was an 'aggressor' in World War 2.

You haven't heard from Ras or volgr then. They even claim we were the aggressor against Japan for the oil embargo (after Japan attacked US ships in China and illegally occupied French Indochina which resulted in the embargo. Frankly, the embargo came too late, we should have done it in 1931 when they invaded Manchuria).

 

[BeardedVol]

You haven't heard from Ras or volgr then. They even claim we were the aggressor against Japan for the oil embargo (after Japan attacked US ships in China and illegally occupied French Indochina which resulted in the embargo. Frankly, the embargo came too late, we should have done it in 1931 when they invaded Manchuria).

I'm not surprised at their ridiculous takes. Unfortunately for them, an embargo, is not an act of war under international law, so their entire premise is as ridiculous as their justification of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I am fine with us telling the world what to do. We are the World Super Power and brought Democracy to Millions. Are we flawed, sure? Who isn't?

Of course you are okay with it, which is the same justification used by Russia or any foreign invader. Freedom, democracy, sovereignty, liberty, etc.

I mean right now the United States is liberating Syria from its oil.

The United States didn't scratch the peace talks between the Ukraine and Russia in 2022 due to democracy, the United States did it for its own interest.

Americans are evil (as far as foreign policy) which is why you are okay with it. You (and me) invade foreign countries for evil purposes, you just pretend its for some noble cause.... its a lie.

 

[LouderVol]

Actually that is an entirely incorrect statement. France actually had a treaty guaranteeing Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia (which they broke), and Yugoslavia going back to the 1920s.

Second paragraph is highly inaccurate as well because Churchill didn't even become Prime Minister until the day the Battle of France started. Basically everything was in place for the Battle of France prior to Churchill having any power and he basically could not plan anything other than Dunkirk and beg the French to keep fighting. Churchill deserves all the praise he gets and even more if you really read up on him and what he went through during that period.

I am not sure where you get your history to be honest as this is well discussed in WW2 forums and videos. Heck, even the movie the Darkest Hour goes into it.

For UK and France to be more prepared for Germany, they would have had to be more aggressive leading up to the war. They had a policy of appeasement which is something a lot of you advocate for on here. It is very easy to be against any involvement at all. If you had been around in the period, you would have followed the same path that UK and France historically followed.

they had the same policy of appeasement that you want. give money and weapons to defending country. and the british even had a formal alliance to join the war in defense of another nation, which you also want. I would be careful about those glass houses.

might want to look at the timelines, and you will see how Churchills aggression to push the Allies forces further into belgium & holland over stretched their lines. that wasn't the plan before Churchill. the quick time in the changes of plans is one of the reasons it wasn't successful. He became PM on May 10th, Dunkirk was June 4th. plenty of time for him to get in there and meddle. if the British and French had stayed in France instead of overextending into Belgium & Holland they would have been in a far better place to defend. Churchill thought it was important to save Belgium.