Great, then it's solved. The only solution is genocide. Doesn't matter which side, just pick one, and kill them all.
That is what you're saying, right?
disablist
joined 11 months ago
Speaking on behalf of myself, and my entire race, I have complete faith in Facebook, Meta, and most importantly Mark Zuckerberg. He has never let us down, and I have no doubt our support and faith will be rewarded when we finally rise up and reclaim earth for all reptilian kind.
Privateering is casus belli.
The blowback I'm referring to wouldn't be kinetic, it'd the loss of the monetary hegemony provided by American lead banking system and the USD being used as the global reserve currency.
Coal is also energy storage, well, all fossil fuels. That's their primary advantage, on-demand easily accessible stores of energy.
If only they didn't simultaneously pollute and cook the earth when used...
This is one of those actions that is completely understandable and an unambiguously moral decision, but the blowback has the potential to upened the entire post-WW2 American centric global financial order. Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, I don't know, but it'll probably depend alot on what your vantage point is.
Ukraine has the right to self-defense, and retaliation.
But, that doesn't mean we should believe the propaganda. Nor does it mean that Russia isn't still ultimately at fault, as these strikes are only happening in response to their brutal invasion and air campaign.
Seriously, do you believe Russia when they claim the only civilians killed during their missile barrages are from Ukrainian air defense missiles?
If anything, I assumed this was their ironic "fuck you" press release to mock the way Russia says the same shit every time their missiles hit civilian targets.
Is it possible this was a result of a Russian air defense system? Sure, but too early to take immediate claims as credible.
Good is relative. What you mean is that there isn't a perfect solution. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So if your argument is that a two state solution isn't perfect, therefore we shouldn't do it, then that's tacit approval for my first solution...a final solution if you will. Just pick a side, and poof.
If you're not comfortable with genocide, then a two state solution is the only viable path forward with any hope of chance of being made into a good outcome, even if not a perfect one.
So pick one: a final solution or a two-state solution, but stop with the wishy-washy "the status quo must remain until a perfect solution is found".