Posted on 10/12/2022 3:56:56 AM PDT by SpeedyInTexas
. “Better dead than Red,” an echo from the 60s. Did you mean fully what you wrote?
I guess you would rather be Red, or put in another way, you would rather live on your knees then die on your feet.
and don’t think many here, if anyone, does.
Many here do fully support the Russian aggression....
And I am against this war; Putin should withdraw. But till then Ukraine has the right to defend itself and I have no problem with us supplying them.
The true “war mongers” I see here on FR are almost all of the “kill Putin at all costs” mindset. See post #15 of this thread of a perfect example.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/4099982/posts?page=15#15
Conversely, you won’t see anyone here posting “I would rather see us all die of nuclear war than let Zelensky stay in power” but link me if you’ve seen that.
GoldenE —> there are two problems with your statement
1. the % of Ukrainians that want to be under Moscow is distributed even in the Donbas. This is kind of like the “want to be part of the republic of ireland but living in Northern Ireland” in the 1960s to 1980s. It isn’t a clean break (it never really is)
2. The opposing power wants not that chunk, but wants the whole country.
This is not the same as the UK vs Republic of Ireland over Northern Ireland — the UK was not going to grab more and more of the Republic after 1920.
Russia hasn’t proven reliable for shared sovereignty, which makes that implausible.
What a silly response, but it comes directly from my experience with such limp debate and empty discussion from the sixties.
Being in the US as I am, and not being in Ukraine between Eastern Europe and Asia, the dualistic game fails. The false premise argument wants to limit discussion to two options only. Pro-Ukraine and pro-Russian. Therefore to one exhibiting this debate strategy, one must limit and not allow the clearer and more demonstrable "not my circus and not my monkeys" as a possible third position to hold.
In the movies, it's usually a black hat and white hat duking it out. Two sides, and never a third. Or fourth.
Wielding a simple slogan into a more complex discussion is not as effective as you might opine.
“In the movies, it’s usually a black hat and white hat duking it out. Two sides, and never a third. Or fourth.”
Or here in FR where is you are opposed to Russian invasion and
think the US should help you are a Biden supporter, neocon, globohomo, democrate, liberal, blah blah blah...that “black and white” knife cuts both ways
To those who wield it, yes it does cut both ways. I choose not to wield the "only two choices allowed" weapon. It is dull and "cuts both ways" as well.
Seems some here are very intolerant of any opinion that would deviate from their own. Thats leaves one with a very boring echo chamber. I tend to post on topics that I may have a different opinion.
Maybe they were, but not so much at this point. Many if not most of the pro-Ukes either fled or were cleansed from that area during the war so far, which will only get worse. Did Putin want more territory at the start, probably, but the lines are pretty much set along the ethnic ones now. Unless the NATO-led Ukes can push Russia out in the next couple of months before winter, those lines will further solidify.
Those of us who are saying "give peace a chance" at this point are being falsely aligned with Russia, or put down as weak and submissive. Not true, we're simply not interested in wars unless they're critical to fight, which does sometimes happen. I don't want to see Russia take all of Ukraine, but I don't want to fight endlessly over 4 provinces on the east side either.
If a settlement could be made to let Russia have those, in exchange for Ukraine being kept neutral with regard to NATO and the EU (not to mention all those other full countries who already went NATO and EU), it would probably be worth it in the long term, from a practical standpoint.
But no(!) that line of practical thinking isn't allowed. The new Ukrainian dictator even passed a law last week that won't allow any peace discussions to even take place. Hence, the war must apparently go on, which will likely only further destroy all of Ukraine, if not spread and intensify to others.
But no(!) that line of practical thinking isn’t allowed.
I wouldnt expect Z to want to cede an inch of Ukraine territory anymore than I would expect a US president to do the same.
One can agree to disagree.
Bad analogy, as the US can better afford to fight to withhold its territory, even if it would be by printing more of its own currency. So is this "Z" you speak of going to pay for the rebuild all of Ukraine, which is being further destroyed by the day? Doesn't look like it, as last I heard the Ukrainian government had recently presented to the UN they already need $750 billion from others like us to rebuild it, if the war stopped now.
Do not doubt your support here, BF.
Godspeed.
Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇦👍
Its Z’s and the Ukrainian people right to refuse to cede wether they have the resources or not.
It appears that Ukraine has picked up the pace on destroying Russian artillery. With their dwindling tank supply, a lack of artillery will really hurt Russia.
Not if he has his credit card cut off it's not.
SpeedyInTexas:
I would rather the world end in nuclear war than yield to Little Pukin.
Zeepers are clinically insane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.