this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
356 points (89.6% liked)
World News
32045 readers
851 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
only fair enough, I remember when they made the US and UK do this after killing hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq
You're not wrong, but just because the USA and UK got away with it doesn't mean we should continue to let others get away with it. We can't go back in time and fix it but we've got to start somewhere.
Why are we letting the people responsible for Iraq and Afghanistans current state get away with it? Like if the US wants to arrest a war criminal Bush and Cheney are right there. Same for Blair, or Harper, or any of the other architects of the invasions.
I'm not saying they should get away with it, I'm just saying that we shouldn't let Russia get away with it because the United States and the UK got away with it. It's like the Boomer argument that it's not fair to them for student loans to be forgiven because they had to pay.
Would you support a policy of student loan forgiveness for only white people?
What kind of stupid ass comment is this?
It's not your standard stupidity, it's Hexbear Premium Brand Stupidity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Do you not understand why I said that? I would not support student loan forgiveness only for white people because, while I like student loan forgiveness, I can recognize that such a program would ultimately just be in the interest of white supremacy. I wouldn't pull the disingenuous liberal line of "you've gotta start somewhere" as though the policy was tethered to some imaginary future state that it is nominally more similar to but practically much further from.
Likewise, saying "well, at least by holding Belarus to account some countries will be held to account, which gets us closer to all countries being held to account!" is absurd. It promotes western dominance, not the abstract idea of "holding countries to account". Striking only one side saying that it's closer to both sides being struck than striking zero sides would be is sophistry.
I’m not sure where in the world you live, but for myself, I’m in a western country. It would be far more easy for my country to hold the architects of the Afghanistan invasion to account than Putin. The fact that my government doesn’t indicates that all the talk of punishing Russia has nothing to do with punishing aggression, it’s just about punishing a rival
It's actually far easier to hold putin to account than western leaders - the western hegemony is hardly going to turn on itself, but it can easily send arms to Ukraine.
That this arming of ukraine is for completely self interested reasons doesn't mean it also has the side effect of helping a country fight tyranny. A good thing done for bad reasons can still be a good thing.
Also, if the western countries will get paid for the help afterwards, that'd be an almost free win
You're trying to say by implication that the ship has sailed on Bush and Obama, but they're still alive. The USA Olympics team is still around. Even if you should've banned them in 1890 doesn't mean you still can't. They haven't apologised, paid reparations, or ceased any of their human rights violating projects.