Trump: Ukraine “Never Should Have Started War” with Russia

[linux.poet]

Why indeed. Your rule appears to be to only support countries who suffer naked aggression from dictators if they can win. The morality of the situation seems more of an inconvenience to you.

Are you going with the “democracy/republic is moral, dictators are immoral” morality system? That’s not what the Bible teaches in terms of morality, so I don’t subscribe to it. When Jesus comes back, he will be King and as much of a dictator if there ever was one.

If you’re saying that it’s immoral to invade another country and take it over, I presume you would condemn the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Zelensky was a democratically elected leader. However, he and his party have been behaving, and are still behaving, like tyrants restricting the free speech rights and freedom of religion rights from Ukrainians who want different, or better, leaders.

Not to mention that Zelensky basically installed himself as a permanent leader until he felt like there was no longer a national threat. Yeah, just imagine how far that would fly if Trump had done the same thing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Trump has been pretty transparent about what his idea of the presidency is.
He wants immunity from the law.
He wants to gain total control of the law, the justice system, and pretty much everything.
He openly said before the election that he would pardon people who illegally do violence for him, who attack the police, or the government for him.
He wants to put his wealthy elite buddies into the highest positions either to destroy the departments that he gives them or to enrich themselves and him. He wants to reduce taxes for the wealthy and put taxes onto the common consumers (such as tariffs). He wants to reduce costs for the wealthy by removing environmental protections. He wants to stop brown people entering the country and kick brown people out of the country. He wants to stop benefits and aid going to the poor, stop medicade, remove price limits on medication. He wants to remove USA from being an active participant in global initiatives such as the Paris accord, WHO, potentially NATO, he wants to stop USA from supporting poor nations, poor people, wants to stop USA helping on a global level to contain contagious outbreaks. He wants to destroy USA's ally relationships, he wants to cosy up to dictatorships and strong men.

Yep. we knew all that...

People should stop complaining. This is what USA voted for. This is what you will get for the next 4 years. You willingly voted for this.
While I have sympathy for the world, like Ukraine and those nations that used to benefit from USAID, like many poor and impoverished African nations, and pretty much every country which is now more likely to experience another global pandemic. I do not have any sympathy for USA, you got to vote, this is what you get, this is what you deserve.

... which I voted against him and made no bones about it here long ahead of the fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How many wars has America won without support (Indian massacres don't count)?

We beat the "confederates".

 

[SimplyMe]

We beat the "confederates".

But "Americans" lost that war, too. I'm not sure it counts if you beat yourself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But "Americans" lost that war, too. I'm not sure it counts if you beat yourself.

No they didn't. Those were the traitors that lost.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Should we walk away from our commitments to an ally?

What "ally?" Last I checked, Ukraine was not a part of NATO. so it's more of a situation of being unified under a common enemy.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Why indeed. Your rule appears to be to only support countries who suffer naked aggression from dictators if they can win. The morality of the situation seems more of an inconvenience to you.

Tell that to the families of the U.S. service member who lost their life fighting a war in a foreign country for no other reason than because some politician who is in bed with he military industrial complex said our morality was on the line. (Que CCR Fortunate Son song).

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If you’re saying that it’s immoral to invade another country and take it over, I presume you would condemn the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Which is what liberals vilified Bush for but now strangely are supporting for some reason.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you going with the “democracy/republic is moral, dictators are immoral” morality system?

What? When is refusing to allow the public the opportunity to choose how they are governed an immoral system? When are the acts of a thug in invading a country and killing their citizens a moral one?

When has standing by without helping to defend democracy been the preferred option?

Tell that to the families of the U.S. service member who lost their life fighting a war in a foreign country...

If the cause is just then they died for a good reason. I'd like to think that that is why they joined up: to fight for what the US used to stand for. Unfortunately, the wars which the US has involved itself have been far from that. From S E Asia to the Middle East.

And unfortunately we are all beginning to wonder what the US does actually stand for.

Are you a representative of what this new America is becoming?

 

[linux.poet]

What? When is refusing to allow the public the opportunity to choose how they are governed an immoral system? When are the acts of a thug in invading a country and killing their citizens a moral one?

When has standing by without helping to defend democracy been the preferred option?

I’m going to take that as a “Yes” to my question.

Allow the public to choose how they are governed is neither moral nor immoral. It is neutral, similar to the price of green cheese on Tuesday. It is also the best governmental solution human beings have devised in the absence of Christ’s rule on the earth. There is nothing inherently morally wrong with this system of government.

As for the characterization of Putin as a “thug”, that is an emotional characterization. Putin is not a gang member, he is a leader, rightly or wrongly, of a sovereign nation that has an interest in conquering Ukraine. It is not right for a thug to kill people, as that is a violation of the 10 commandments, specifically the one against murder.

It would be more appropriate to call the leaders of the M23 gang down in the Democratic Republic of the Congo thugs as opposed to Putin, as they are the leaders of no nation and have senselessly killed thousands. That’s the difference between a thug attack and a war.

 

[Bradskii]

Allow the public to choose how they are governed is neither moral nor immoral.

It is absolutely immoral to deny people the right to determine how they are governed. This what Putin is attempting to do, even as you read this. By force of arms.

As for the characterization of Putin as a “thug”, that is an emotional characterization.

I guess that someone who has journalists and others who oppose him killed is not a thug. Someone who invades a sovereign country and has their men, women and children killed by the tens of thousands is not a thug. Me? Well, I went with the strongest word that I could think of to describe this abhorrent creature without getting me banned by the mods. You are free to find any term that you personally thinks describes this monster.

 

[Vambram]

@linux.poet @Bradskii

The polite phrase that I think is the best description of Vladimir Putin is: "evil tyrannical dictator."

 

[Bradskii]

@linux.poet @Bradskii

The polite phrase that I think is the best description of Vladimir Putin is: "evil tyrannical dictator."

That'll do me.

 

[linux.poet]

It is absolutely immoral to deny people the right to determine how they are governed. This what Putin is attempting to do, even as you read this. By force of arms.

That’s inconsistent with Christian morality since we believe that God determines who is the ruler of any given nation, and that God is the ultimate absolute authority who will eventually supersede all authorities any group of people might choose for themselves. (I suppose that’s at least part of the reason why you are an atheist, if these messages accurately represent your views - you simply do not wish to submit to an governing authority that you did not choose for yourself.)

Because, by hook or by crook, Putin is the leader of the Russian nation, God has appointed him to that position. Therefore I have to acknowledge that fact even though I disagree with Mr. Putin’s decision not to respect the will of another sovereign nation by choosing to invade its territory and kill a bunch of people.

The polite phrase that I think is the best description of Vladimir Putin is: "evil tyrannical dictator."

I have read enough facts about how the Russian government is run and how Vlademir has manipulated it and the Russian media to go along with this. I just tend to resist emotional characterizations of all kinds, and would just prefer to refer to Putin’s actions and crimes. But that is a convenient summary.

 

[Bradskii]

That’s inconsistent with Christian morality since we believe that God determines who is the ruler of any given nation, and that God is the ultimate absolute authority who will eventually supersede all authorities any group of people might choose for themselves.

I doubt if my command of the English language is sufficient enough for me to tell you how monstrously ridiculous a position that is to hold.

Hold to it and if anyone tells you that they are now going to tell you how to live your life then you must accept it as 'God is the ultimate absolute authority who will eventually supersede all authorities any group of people might choose for themselves.'

It means that you have no choice. No recourse. No means to determine your own course. No argument to make. Because it is written! God has made the decision for you!

So much for Him granting you free will. You seem determined not to use it. I find that quite depressing.

 

[linux.poet]

Hold to it and if anyone tells you that they are now going to tell you how to live your life then you must accept it as 'God is the ultimate absolute authority who will eventually supersede all authorities any group of people might choose for themselves.'

I honestly think that idea is absurd. I don’t take orders from “just anyone”, I just submit to governing authorities as per Romans 13. I reject corrupt authorities that do not submit to God’s word as guidance for my personal decisions. That includes my abusive parent and the spiritual leaders he manipulated, for example.

I honestly think you’re going from one extreme to the other with these posts, trying to emotionally fight the war on Ukraine. I just don’t feel like emotionally wearing myself out over this conflict because you feel you need to, apparently. There isn’t much point in going “Evil authority figure! ahhhh! *scream scream rage rage*” every time one shows up; it’s not very productive to solving the problems they create. Just calculate solutions, solve the problems and move on.

It means that you have no choice. No recourse. No means to determine your own course. No argument to make. Because it is written! God has made the decision for you!

I have plenty of recourse to evil authority, but it is usually arrived at through calculations and not through emotion. Emotion is how evil authorities manipulate and control people. If you’re emotionally reacting, you’re not thinking and you are out of your own control.

I honestly think this post may be a projection of your fault onto me. You have the free will to stop reacting to Putin and consider the facts as they stand, but you have instead chosen to allow a “evil tyrannical dictator” to stir up your emotions and prompt irrational words and decisions. Now these decisions may not be consequential, seeing that you are not a world leader, but imagine if you were the President right now. Suddenly the nuclear option would appear very appealing because “Putin is evil must stop evil ahhh”. That is precisely what Putin wants: more death and destruction. He is a bully on the international schoolyard prompting emotional reactions from neighboring inner children of the traumatized adults in countries nearby.

Free will is a very strange feeling to me, the sense that other people are windup toys being pulled around in circles in patterns by their emotions, some good, some not. I have no need to emotionally defend my free will; I walk free. Kingdoms may rise, kingdoms may fall, but the will of God will not change, and I am existent, whether alive or dead.

 

[SimplyMe]

Which is what liberals vilified Bush for but now strangely are supporting for some reason.

I don't seem to recall that. Granted, I was in the military for the First Gulf War, so maybe I missed it. I mean, I remember a couple of protests in places like San Francisco but they were small and even condemned by a fair number of Democrats. My experience is that the nation had no issue with kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, to include the majority of Democrats.

Now if you talk about Pres. Bush's son, I seem to recall many did oppose that war -- but that wasn't in response to Iraq attacking anyone. Instead, the then Pres. Bush tried to make some very weak ties between Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 9/11 terrorists. And he made complaints about "WMD" using weak evidence, and we didn't find stronger evidence when we invaded.

And maybe I remember wrong, but I recall America (to include Democrats) being very united when it came to attacking Afghanistan. Again, the issue most had was when Bush pulled soldiers out of Afghanistan to start what appears to have been an unnecessary war in Iraq; a war that hurt our soldiers in Afghanistan and led to the creation of ISIS.

 

[7thKeeper]

Not to mention that Zelensky basically installed himself as a permanent leader until he felt like there was no longer a national threat. Yeah, just imagine how far that would fly if Trump had done the same thing.

Well if the USA were to be invaded by a nation several times over, with significant parts of its territory under occupation and active fighting going on all over, no one would blink because that's what happens. You keep trying to push this Russian propaganda point (and I bet you never once mentioned it until Trump started doing it as well), but never actually address the pesky fact that there's an active war going on. We know why though, kinda destroys your whole point.

 

[stevil]

But "Americans" lost that war, too. I'm not sure it counts if you beat yourself.

It's less satisfying, but better than nothing.