this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

32348 readers
413 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The use of depleted uranium munitions has been fiercely debated, with opponents like the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons saying there are dangerous health risks from ingesting or inhaling depleted uranium dust, including cancers and birth defects.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know why people keep repeating this. Do you honestly think this is a coherent point? Russia is obviously not going to go home no matter how many times you're going to repeat it. It's a meaningless and useless statement that literally solves nothing. Either NATO can defeat Russia or not, so far it looks like NATO is not able to do so. What NATO is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict without changing the outcome. That means more people dying and having their lives ruined so that US military industry can make a profit and so that US can try and weaken Russia geopolitically. Anybody who thinks the west is in this conflict to help Ukraine is an utter imbecile.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Should the US have sent supplies to the allies in WWI and WWII before joining? It was just prolonging the war and causing people to die, right?

The reason the US is doing it is not morality. Everyone knows that. International politics is never about morality, it's about power. However, that doesn't mean it isn't also the moral option.

Also, NATO and the US are not in the war. We're sending supplies. The US isn't even sending the good stuff. We're sending parts of our stockpile that's old and has just been sitting around waiting for a use. They haven't sent the newer technology so it it isn't studied in case a real enemy requires them to be used.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It takes an incredible amount of historical illiteracy to try and draw parallels between WW2 and the proxy war US is waging against Russia in Ukraine. However, if you weren't historically illiterate, then you'd also know that US companies continued working with the nazis well into the war, and IBM is famously responsible for facilitating the holocaust.

Also, NATO and the US are very obviously in this war, and one has to be utterly intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When the US government was providing resources to the allies, was it good or bad? I'm not talking companies or anything else. You're dodging the question. There are enough parallels to draw a comparison. You just know what the answer would be and it conflicts with your beliefs, so you can't admit it, to yourself or others.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When US government provides resources to these people, is it good or bad?

And this is why your comparison is historically illiterate. The actual comparison would be US funding the nazis in WW2. You're either ignorant of whom US is propping up in Ukraine or you're just dishonest. Either way not a good look.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still didn't answer the question. More What-aboutism. How unexpected! /s

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I did answer your question in detail, and it's safe to dismiss anybody who uses whataboutism as a form of argument. That's just a logical fallacy that imbeciles use to try and create a double standard.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You didn't, and I didn't use What-aboutism. I pointed out that you did. You said "what about...." What's wrong with you?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I did, and you crying about whataboutism is what I'm referring to. Anybody who calls out whataboutism as a form of argument is engaging in intellectual dishonesty. The question you set up is fundamentally wrong, and you're fishing for an answer for that setup. This is like me asking you if you've stopped beating your wife.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I love that, in your opinion, calling out What-aboutism is "intellectual dishonesty" but using it is totally OK.

I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn't because it was wrong to ask.

This is like me asking you if you've stopped beating your wife.

That's be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It's either "I never did", "yes", or "no". Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they'll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, "what about..."). It's avoiding the question.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Calling whataboutism simply serves to set up a double standard for yourself and others. That's what makes it intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, there is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing out hypocrisy and double standards.

I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn’t because it was wrong to ask.

I answered your question by explaining to you in detail why the question is nonsensical. US is currently supporting fascists in Ukraine, trying to compare that to US supporting allies fighting against fascists in WW2 is backwards. The fact that you can't comprehend that says volumes.

That’s be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It’s either “I never did”, “yes”, or “no”. Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they’ll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, “what about…”). It’s avoiding the question.

Once again you missed the whole point there which is setting up a false premise and then trying to get the other person to work within that premise. This is precisely what you did with your question. Pointing that out isn't avoiding the question it's calling out your bullshit.