Yes I have written many posts on the Ukraine situation…..let me say here before some troll gets a hard on…..I oppose the invasion and the subsequent conflict that stared earlier this year when Russia invaded Ukraine.
With my posts have come many comments in support for Ukraine/NATO and the massive involvement in the conflict…..to me many of those are irrational because we Americans have given so much treasure in our many many wars and yet there is still some chest thumping……
When asked I usually get some snarky comments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
And the conversation continues with o actually talking….
A Harvard professor has made some interesting observations on this very subject……
Because war is uncertain and reliable information is sparse, no one knows how the war in Ukraine will play out. Nor can any of us be completely certain what the optimal course of action is. We all have our own theories, hunches, beliefs, and hopes, but nobody’s crystal ball is 100 percent reliable in the middle of a war.You might think that this situation would encourage observers to approach the whole issue with a certain humility and give alternative perspectives a fair hearing even when they disagree with one’s own. Instead, debates about responsibility for the war and the proper course of action to follow have been unusually nasty and intolerant, even by modern standards of social media vituperation. I’ve been trying to figure out why this is the case.What I find especially striking is how liberal interventionists, unrepentant neoconservatives, and a handful of progressives who are all-in for Ukraine seem to have no doubts whatsoever about the origins of the conflict or the proper course of action to follow today. For them, Russian President Vladimir Putin is solely and totally responsible for the war, and the only mistakes others may have made in the past was to be too nice to Russia and too willing to buy its oil and gas. The only outcome they are willing to entertain is a complete Ukrainian victory, ideally accompanied by regime change in Moscow, the imposition of reparations to finance Ukrainian reconstruction, and war crimes trials for Putin and his associates. Convinced that anything less than this happy result will reward aggression, undermine deterrence, and place the current world order in jeopardy, their mantra is: “Whatever it takes for as long as it takes.”This same group has also been extraordinarily critical of those who believe responsibility for the war is not confined to Russia’s president and who think these war aims might be desirable in the abstract but are unlikely to be achieved at an acceptable cost and risk. If you have the temerity to suggest that NATO enlargement (and the policies related to it) helped pave the road to war, if you believe the most likely outcome is a negotiated settlement and that getting there sooner rather than later would be desirable, and if you favor supporting Ukraine but think this goal should be weighed against other interests, you’re almost certain to be denounced as a pro-Putin stooge, an appeaser, an isolationist, or worse. Case in point: When a handful of progressive congressional representatives released a rather tepid statement calling for greater reliance on diplomacy a few weeks ago, it was buried under a hailstorm of criticism and quickly disavowed by its own sponsors.
According to a report from CNN, the Biden administration is considering a request from Ukraine to provide cluster bombs, munitions that are banned by over 100 countries under an international treaty due to the harm they cause to civilians.
Cluster munitions scatter small bombs over large areas, making them more indiscriminate than other munitions. The small bombs often don’t explode on impact, making them a huge danger to civilians who comes across them, similar to land mines.
The 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions that bans the weapons has 108 signatories, but the US, Russia, and Ukraine are not parties to the treaty. Since Russia launched its invasion in February, both Russian and Ukrainian forces have used cluster munitions, and Kyiv was accused of using the bombs in populated areas of Donestk back in 2014.
The last known time the US used cluster bombs was in Yemen in 2009. Before that, US forces used them in the early days of the Afghanistan war and in Iraq in 2003. The US has supplied cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia, which has used them in its war on Yemen.
The CNN report said that the Biden administration has been fielding a request from Ukraine for cluster munitions for months and has not rejected it outright. The administration hasn’t taken the option off the table if US stockpiles of other munitions become dangerously low.
What happened to all that concern for civilians?
Personally I am sick of the pathetic excuses some Americans for this country pouring much needed cash into this war.
14 thoughts on “The Irrationality Of The Debate”
War cannot be fought without civilian collateral damage so let’s give the Ukrainians the cluster bombs along with the technology need to deliver them straight to the area of the Kremlin thereby getting some good use out of them.
Sorry I cannot agree with any part of that and never will. They already will get Abrams that should be enough plus they do not have the capability to work on these tanks….so Americans will probably get involved in some way….this just prolongs the conflict….no one needs a longer war. chuq
No one needs a longer war but that is what we are going to get (Like Afghanistan) if somebody don’t take the bull by the horns and get the job done while they still can get the job done. It is time for the entire free world to come together and emasculate the enemy completely, down to the last burning ember.
Not in agreement chuq
You will see one of these days.
I guess we all will chuq
I have no problem with Ukraine taking the fight to Russian soil. It’s boggling that there is a vocal camp that would call this ‘escalation’.
There are cowards who won’t admit the truth about things too –But wars have been fought ever since the first human drew breath and they are an inevitability — The current war in Ukrains is just a repeat of what happened in Germany in 1939 and the outcome will be similar also — regardless of whether the wilting on the vine denial chasers admit it or not. Strawberries and whipped philosophy are not going to end this war …courage and acti on can end this war …
For me, it defies logic that when a nation is invaded and occupied, unprovoked…….that the subjugated nation has a duty to make concessions. It makes me wonder what the concession camp would offer up were we invaded.
The amount and scope of military aid is absolutely up for debate. But the morality of assistance in these cases, is not.
Without considerations this would go 10 or 20 years….not wanting to consider any path is doing NO one any good. chuq
There is a path. The aggressor can withdraw from the sovereign territory of the nation it invaded.
Not a bad idea but there must be no proxy waiting to start it again….and that is what we will do chuq
The BBC is now turning on Ukraine, and wondering where all the money is really going.
Ministers living in huge mansions, driving Porsches, taking holidays in Spain in the middle of a war. Zelensky’s wife buying luxuries and fashion clothing in Paris.
It is all starting to come out.
I think we can be sure that some of the ‘aid’ is not reaching the war, or the ordinary people. It is not getting any further than the pockets of the elite in that country.
Best wishes, Pete.
War does make corruption grow….all our wars have proven it. chuq