Could it be that the first casualty of peace, is propaganda?
Check out the dates on some of the pictures.
I find the following passage from the cited wesite interesting:
Everything we are seeing in U.S. media surrounding U.S. interests in Ukraine is a massive propaganda operation with the headquarters in the U.S. State Department and U.S. intelligence community. The sense of sympathy you are feeling is part of an intentionally manipulative operation from within this DC matrix.
The images, pictures, videos, speeches, soundbites and the cinematography broadcast by U.S. corporate media are all purposefully intended to create a very specific outlook within the American people toward the issues in Ukraine. The leftist United Nations, and the leftist U.S State Dept, will work together on this just like they have done in the prior examples (Ukraine 1.0, Libya, Egypt, etc.).
I'm curious why this source doesn't mention the illegal invasion of Iraq as an example of propaganda at work? Does the "Conservative Treehouse" believe Putin's invasion is unjust, just as the Iraq war was unjust?
Walker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:41 pm
The thought that Nuclear is not a deterrent, is a justification for those countries who aid and abet Iran's furious centrifuging.
Unless ... other forces are involved.
How can you deny another country nukes when you have them yourself?
It's not irrational to seek to limit nuclear proliferation if it's done for humanitarian reasons. It's in the best interest of everyone to discourage countries from seeking to create nuclear weapons. Of course, the US government's behavior, invading and attacking other countries, has only provoked some states to seek them more vigorously in the name of self-defense.
I did not ask if it was rational.
What exactly is the "humanitarian" aspect of denying Iran?
If you have nukes and try to deny them to others that is called hypocrisy.
Walker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:41 pm
The thought that Nuclear is not a deterrent, is a justification for those countries who aid and abet Iran's furious centrifuging.
Unless ... other forces are involved.
How can you deny another country nukes when you have them yourself?
That's a very good question. The "How" is for the same reason that I personally would deny an automobile, if I could, to anyone hellbent on using it to run me over. 'Specially if it was an electric car because those things can sneak up on you.
Philosophers are known for obliviousness to daily practicalities. Don't get too lost in abstractions or else someone will knock you in the head and take your money.
Then again, can we really believe what we hear about Iran?
How can you deny another country nukes when you have them yourself?
It's not irrational to seek to limit nuclear proliferation if it's done for humanitarian reasons. It's in the best interest of everyone to discourage countries from seeking to create nuclear weapons. Of course, the US government's behavior, invading and attacking other countries, has only provoked some states to seek them more vigorously in the name of self-defense.
I did not ask if it was rational.
That's a fair point.
What exactly is the "humanitarian" aspect of denying Iran?
Because the more countries that have nuclear weapons increases the chances of a catastrophic accident occuring or the possibility that they would fall into the hands of someone who would irrationally use them.
If you have nukes and try to deny them to others that is called hypocrisy.
It's not irrational to seek to limit nuclear proliferation if it's done for humanitarian reasons. It's in the best interest of everyone to discourage countries from seeking to create nuclear weapons. Of course, the US government's behavior, invading and attacking other countries, has only provoked some states to seek them more vigorously in the name of self-defense.
I did not ask if it was rational.
That's a fair point.
What exactly is the "humanitarian" aspect of denying Iran?
Because the more countries that have nuclear weapons increases the chances of a catastrophic accident occuring or the possibility that they would fall into the hands of someone who would irrationally use them.
You mean like Trump?
If you have nukes and try to deny them to others that is called hypocrisy.
What exactly is the "humanitarian" aspect of denying Iran?
Because the more countries that have nuclear weapons increases the chances of a catastrophic accident occuring or the possibility that they would fall into the hands of someone who would irrationally use them.
You mean like Trump?
Yes, like Trump. You asked why it was humanitarian to prevent nuclear proliferation, I supplied an answer. Do you agree with my answer or not?
If you have nukes and try to deny them to others that is called hypocrisy.
Do two wrongs make a right, though?
Not applicable.
My point is that just because it's hypocritical to prevent Iran from getting hold of nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily--in and of itself--make it a good idea from a humanitarian standpoint for Iran to get hold of nuclear weapons. Citing hypocrisy doesn't make a point fallacious because it's ultimately an ad hominem, a fallacy of relevance, to call someone a hypocrite when they are making an otherwise valid point.
I'll agree that Trump is sociopathic, which is why I'm glad Trump is not in power. Trump would probably have seen Russia's invasion as a personal slight against him and sought to retaliate.
As I say: Remarkably, though, durin' ORANGE MAN's 4 years, Putin didn't do diddly.
In fact, durin' his 4 years, a whole whack of the sociopaths in power didn't do diddly.
Now? Russia takes Ukraine; China moves toward Taiwan; Islamists are gettin' noisy again.
What's different? Certainly not Putin's aspirations (he's wanted to reconstruct the Soviet Union for years); certainly not the overall composition and skew of world governments. No, the one difference is we no longer have our sociopath in the Big Chair to counter all the other sociopaths. We traded ORANGE MAN for the House Plant.
Biden is at least keeping the reigns in on things and seeking diplomatic routes to stave off the Russians.
No he's not. He's flailin' about.
Believe it or not, Henry, Biden is doing the right thing.
He's doin' squat.
And, at this point: I'm glad he doin' nuthin' cuz anything he does just makes things worse.
Biden is doing the right thing by keeping the US out of war.
He ought not have started it to begin with.
-----
sculptor wrote: How can you deny another country nukes when you have them yourself?
Even with moral justification (and as you say, the U.S. has none) there's no practical way to stop nuke development. Pandora's armory done let the warheads out. The atomic genie is out of the bottle.
Because the more countries that have nuclear weapons increases the chances of a catastrophic accident occuring or the possibility that they would fall into the hands of someone who would irrationally use them.
You mean like Trump?
Yes, like Trump. You asked why it was humanitarian to prevent nuclear proliferation, I supplied an answer. Do you agree with my answer or not?
Do two wrongs make a right, though?
Not applicable.
My point is that just because it's hypocritical to prevent Iran from getting hold of nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily--in and of itself--make it a good idea from a humanitarian standpoint for Iran to get hold of nuclear weapons. Citing hypocrisy doesn't make a point fallacious because it's ultimately an ad hominem, a fallacy of relevance, to call someone a hypocrite when they are making an otherwise valid point.
The problem is that they are morally entitled to ignore us on the grounds that we all want to keep our nukes.
They are alos morally entitled to enjoy the same "protection" as us.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 3:38 pm
You mean like Trump?
Yes, like Trump. You asked why it was humanitarian to prevent nuclear proliferation, I supplied an answer. Do you agree with my answer or not?
Not applicable.
My point is that just because it's hypocritical to prevent Iran from getting hold of nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily--in and of itself--make it a good idea from a humanitarian standpoint for Iran to get hold of nuclear weapons. Citing hypocrisy doesn't make a point fallacious because it's ultimately an ad hominem, a fallacy of relevance, to call someone a hypocrite when they are making an otherwise valid point.
The problem is that they are morally entitled to ignore us on the grounds that we all want to keep our nukes.
They are alos morally entitled to enjoy the same "protection" as us.
OK. However, if Iran wants nukes then just about everyone else is going to need them as well, including us. Over a hundred independent states in the world all brandishing nukes is a recipe for an accident or worse, armageddon. Personally, it seems more rational to me for everyone including the US to get rid of nukes rather than to increase the distribution of them. But maybe you're right. And maybe it's just the inevitable and something we're all going to have to live and deal with eventually anyway.
Yes, like Trump. You asked why it was humanitarian to prevent nuclear proliferation, I supplied an answer. Do you agree with my answer or not?
My point is that just because it's hypocritical to prevent Iran from getting hold of nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily--in and of itself--make it a good idea from a humanitarian standpoint for Iran to get hold of nuclear weapons. Citing hypocrisy doesn't make a point fallacious because it's ultimately an ad hominem, a fallacy of relevance, to call someone a hypocrite when they are making an otherwise valid point.
The problem is that they are morally entitled to ignore us on the grounds that we all want to keep our nukes.
They are alos morally entitled to enjoy the same "protection" as us.
OK. However, if Iran wants nukes then just about everyone else is going to need them as well, including us. Over a hundred independent states in the world all brandishing nukes is a recipe for an accident or worse, armageddon. Personally, it seems more rational to me for everyone including the US to get rid of nukes rather than to increase the distribution of them. But maybe you're right. And maybe it's just the inevitable and something we're all going to have to live and deal with eventually anyway.
I think it would be a shame to have to wait for the next major nuclear error before there is an internation convention on zero-nukes, but I think that is the only way it is going to happen. And whilst there remains the potential for leaders like Trump to be elected that tragedy is almost certain at some point.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:13 am
So is the Nuclear deterent is so good, why the fuck has this not effective against Russia?
Or is it because Putin knows very well the west cannot use such a weapon without the end of times?
And since the west seem wholly reliant on nukes, they have no other options?
I don't think there's anything any sane person can do about Russia invading Ukraine other than the economic sanctions that are being put into place.
Exactly how is the so-called invasion of the Ukraine by Russia anyone else's business except the Ukranians and Russians? What's it to you?
I understand why all the war-mongers want to stick their hateful noses in everyone else's business, but not anyone who is a rational, decent, productive individual.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:13 am
So is the Nuclear deterent is so good, why the fuck has this not effective against Russia?
Or is it because Putin knows very well the west cannot use such a weapon without the end of times?
And since the west seem wholly reliant on nukes, they have no other options?
I don't think there's anything any sane person can do about Russia invading Ukraine other than the economic sanctions that are being put into place.
Exactly how is the so-called invasion of the Ukraine by Russia anyone else's business except the Ukranians and Russians? What's it to you?
I understand why all the war-mongers want to stick their hateful noses in everyone else's business, but not anyone who is a rational, decent, productive individual.
Because Ukrainians are dying for their country against a foreign invader. It takes a village (an international one) to keep the peace. International opinion will decide things in the end. Any country that wishes to behave like an asshole has the same things happen to it as any person who wishes to behave like an asshole. In the end, karma is real. I'm convinced of it.
