The Ukraine Question

[xerx]

It's funny watching Americans defending Ukraine's right to decide its own foreign policy. Because, I assure you, none of the United States' neighbours are allowed to have a fully independent foreign policy of their own.

Even recently, the United States forced Canada to detain an important Chinese businesswoman. It caused a diplomatic spat between China and Canada, one in which China retaliated by imprisoning Canadian citizens (on bogus charges) and sanctioning Canadian imports. Canada was used as fodder in order to advance American foreign policy interests (the businesswoman was skirting American sanctions on Iran, sanctions which Canada doesn't even recognize). The Canadian court found no cause for extradition in the end, but damage was done.

If Mexico or Canada participated in Chinese wargames off the coast of California; allowed China to use their bases; and left NORAD, weakening American nuclear security in the process; would the United States not go a little ballistic (both figuratively and literally)? Like NATO, imagine that this alliance also provides intelligence-sharing and cybersecurity integration (don't think for a moment that the United States doesn't deploy cyber attacks).

Training with China means using the same hardware, which means buying Chinese-made weapons, trucks, cars, bullet-proof vests, and aircraft instead of American. And if that meant losing X million American manufacturing jobs, I'd wonder whether even Bernie Sanders would rediscover the Monroe Doctrine.

Ukraine has earned its independence; of that there's absolutely no question. And even if it loses, the Ukrainian struggle will be remembered and glorified for a very long time. Russia has done a very, very bad thing. But it'd be nice if Americans showed a little more introspection before criticizing Russia for wanting its own sphere of influence.

[Adam Strange]

It's funny watching Americans defending Ukraine's right to decide its own foreign policy. Because, I assure you, none of the United States' neighbours are allowed to have an independent foreign policy of their own.

Even recently, the United States forced Canada to detain an important Chinese businesswoman. It caused a diplomatic spat between China and Canada, one in which China retaliated by imprisoning Canadian citizens (on bogus charges) and sanctioning Canadian imports. Canada was used as fodder in order to advance American foreign policy interests (the businesswoman was skirting American sanctions on Iran, sanctions which Canada doesn't even recognize). The Canadian court found no cause for extradition in the end, but damage was done.

If Mexico or Canada participated in Chinese wargames off the coast of California, allowed China to use their bases, and left NORAD (weakening American nuclear security in the process), would the United States not go a little ballistic (both figuratively and literally)? Like NATO, imagine that this alliance also provides intelligence-sharing and cybersecurity integration (don't think for a moment that the United States doesn't deploy cyber attacks).

Training with China means using the same hardware, which means buying Chinese-made weapons, trucks, cars, bullet-proof vests, and aircraft instead of American. And if that meant losing X million American manufacturing jobs, I'd wonder whether even Bernie Sanders would rediscover the Monroe Doctrine.

Ukraine has earned its independence; of that there's absolutely no question. And even if it loses, the Ukrainian struggle will be remembered and glorified for a very, very long time. Russia has done a very bad thing. But I'd like Americans to show a little more introspection before criticizing Russia for wanting its own sphere of influence.

Let’s say that you have neighbors who have sex in public and collect the heads of mailmen and delivery drivers who walk onto their property. (Actual practice of ancient Roman allied tribes.) Of course, these guys have the right to self-determination, but some practices should be discouraged.

I certainly realize that US policy is not even-handed. But I believe it is an improvement over the policies of most countries. Usually. Although at age 20, I did want to overthrow the government of the United States by force and violence.

Some practices should be discouraged, though.

In May of 1823, one John Nash of Bristol led his wife, whom he had placed in a halter, to the town marketplace, where he sold her to a young man for six pennies. The new owner then took her away.
This was perfectly legal, although some parts of society looked down upon the practice of men selling their family members in the town marketplace. Prudes and busybodies, perhaps.
So in 1885, England made a law which made it illegal to sell or kidnap a girl into prostitution if she was under the age of sixteen. Girls older than sixteen were still fair game, though.

Little by little, we progress.

[xerx]

Let’s say that you have neighbors who have sex in public and collect the heads of mailmen and delivery drivers who walk onto their property. Of course, these guys have the right to self-determination, but some practices should be discouraged.

I certainly realize that US policy is not even-handed. But I believe it is an improvement over the policies of most countries. Usually. Although at age 20, I wanted to overthrow the government of the United States by force and violence.

Some practices should be discouraged, though.

In May of 1823, one John Nash of Bristol led his wife, whom he had placed in a halter, to the town marketplace, where he sold her to a young man for six pennies. The new owner then took her away.
This was perfectly legal, although some parts of society looked down upon the practice.

Little by little, we progress.

Adam, don't be too offended. I'd still rather have America as a neighbour than Russia. A rich neighbour might raise your property taxes; a poor neighbour might break into your house and steal your food.

[Adam Strange]

Adam, don't be too offended. I'd still rather have America as a neighbour than Russia (although history could have been a lot different). A rich neighbour might raise your property taxes; a poor neighbour might break into your house and steal your food.

I wasn’t offended. America has a lot to answer for.

My defense of US foreign policy is not at all based on moral arguments, because it is indefensible in moral terms.

No, my defense of US policy is entirely based on the practical view that America is less bad than most, and that it’s influence has generally been more good than bad. In my opinion.

[xerx]

I wasn’t offended. America has a lot to answer for.

My defense of US foreign policy is not at all based on moral arguments, because it is indefensible in moral terms.

No, my defense of US policy is entirely based on the practical view that America is less bad than most, and that it’s influence has generally been more good than bad. In my opinion.

I'll buy that (with petrodollars). Just kidding; I agree that things could have been much, much worse.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It's funny watching Americans defending Ukraine's right to decide its own foreign policy. Because, I assure you, none of the United States' neighbours are allowed to have a fully independent foreign policy of their own.

Even recently, the United States forced Canada to detain an important Chinese businesswoman. It caused a diplomatic spat between China and Canada, one in which China retaliated by imprisoning Canadian citizens (on bogus charges) and sanctioning Canadian imports. Canada was used as fodder in order to advance American foreign policy interests (the businesswoman was skirting American sanctions on Iran, sanctions which Canada doesn't even recognize). The Canadian court found no cause for extradition in the end, but damage was done.

If Mexico or Canada participated in Chinese wargames off the coast of California; allowed China to use their bases; and left NORAD, weakening American nuclear security in the process; would the United States not go a little ballistic (both figuratively and literally)? Like NATO, imagine that this alliance also provides intelligence-sharing and cybersecurity integration (don't think for a moment that the United States doesn't deploy cyber attacks).

Training with China means using the same hardware, which means buying Chinese-made weapons, trucks, cars, bullet-proof vests, and aircraft instead of American. And if that meant losing X million American manufacturing jobs, I'd wonder whether even Bernie Sanders would rediscover the Monroe Doctrine.

Ukraine has earned its independence; of that there's absolutely no question. And even if it loses, the Ukrainian struggle will be remembered and glorified for a very long time. Russia has done a very, very bad thing. But it'd be nice if Americans showed a little more introspection before criticizing Russia for wanting its own sphere of influence.

You shouldn't ever discourage or make fun of people for doing or trying to do the right thing even if obviously they have their own fucked up shit to work on. If that was the case nothing good or healing or productive would get done ever. If I was being chased by a serial killer, and somebody thought that they didn't have the right to stop them because they shoplifted before ((or even something more serious like bank robbery, I mean it's just an example)) is just flat-out ethically retarded.

The bigger ethical issue above all this crap is people thinking they are righteous and playing God, and how falsely limiting and insecure paper contracts are no matter how "official" people make them. You can have your own sphere of influence without vampircally trying to turn everything into yourself. Basic empathetic respect is co-existance with others who are different, basic narcissism is Putin becoming an Idea of himself and making everybody a clone of himself because he's cuckoo.

[xerx]

You shouldn't ever discourage or make fun of people for doing or trying to do the right thing even if obviously they have their own fucked up shit to work on. If that was the case nothing good or healing or productive would get done ever.

That's fair.