Quantcast

«

»

Mar 22 2014

I’m Warmonger-Weary

Bill Kristol is clutching his pearls once again over the idea that the American people are “war-weary” and might not follow his inevitable advice to invade another country for no reason anytime soon. He quotes a letter to the Wall Street Journal from one Heidi Szrom of Valparaiso, Indiana:

According to pundits, the president and letter writers, America is “war weary.” Every time I hear this, I wonder: Did you serve? Did you volunteer to fight oppression in foreign lands? Did your son or brother or husband? If so, then I understand and sympathize with your complaint .  .  . unlike most of those who utter this shopworn phrase.

Perhaps the country’s weariness stems from a reluctance to face unpleasant truths—one of which is that power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. .  .  . History tells us it will only be a temporary reprieve. Our current defense cuts ensure that we will be woefully unprepared to face the next test. We are so weary that we are falling asleep.

And he follows up:

Well said. If only Republican elected officials were half as clear-minded and nearly as courageous as Ms. Szrom in taking on the claim that we all need to defer to, to bow down to, our own war-weariness. In fact, the idol of war-weariness can be challenged. A war-weary public can be awakened and rallied. Indeed, events are right now doing the awakening. All that’s needed is the rallying.

I’ll admit it, I’m war-weary. Even more, though, I’m warmonger-weary. I’ve grown tired of Kristol and his neo-conservative dream of America in a state of perpetual war with virtually everyone. And I find it especially amusing that Kristol, who quite famously did not serve in Vietnam when he was of age to do so and supported the war (as he has supported every war), quoting that particular portion of that letter wherein the writer condemns those who didn’t serve in the military who don’t want to send more soldiers off to die. Kristol clearly thinks it’s perfectly fine for someone who didn’t serve in the military to advocate for sending more soldiers to their inevitable deaths, even if they have a track record of being monumentally wrong when they do. Like when he said that Iraq would be a “two month war, not an eight year war,” unlike the Vietnam war he refused to fight in. How’d that prediction work out for you, Bill?

But now he wants us to go to war in Iran and probably the Ukraine too and he’s annoyed that the people may be tired of being talked into supporting wars based on lies at a cost of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Cry me a fucking river, Bill. That anyone pays attention to you at all anymore is a testament only to how vapid our political discourse has become. In a just world, you would have long ago been condemned to stand on a street corner in Washington, DC with a sandwich board that says “We’ve always been at war with (fill in the blank).”

48 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    colnago80

    Just another chicken hawk.

  2. 2
    raven

    Bush made us less safe with his pointless war in Iraq which accomplished nothing. Right now they are having a huge civil war and IIRC, hundreds die every month, mostly civilians randomly targeted. The whole country has stopped working because people won’t go anywhere.

    So, we are suffering from Vietnam War Syndrome. After a while, people just get tired of spending huge amounts of money and the lives of their friends and family for no good reason.

    Which means we will be in trouble if we ever have to resort to war again. Which could happen. Not all wars are equally as stupid and pointless and sometimes self defense is called for.

  3. 3
    raven

    Almost OT. I’m not seeing that what Putin is doing makes the slightest bit of sense for Russia.

    1. The USSR imploded because of internal problems. The captured territories cost more than they produced and it was expensive to put down revolts every few years. Empires like the Roman and Soviet ones aren’t usually long term cost effective or viable.

    What Putin is doing is putting that Frankinstein monster back together.

    2. And the USSR doesn’t really have the money to subsidize it’s war booty. A recent article looked what happened to South Ossetia, the prize during the Bush administration.

    Nothing. They were supposed to fix the place up with aid money but that never happened. Today South Ossetia is a stagnant backwater going nowhere with high levels of poverty. Because of the Caucasus mountains, their natural travel corridor was south into Georgia, which is now cut off because of their own actions.

    I guess hating Georgians beats having a reasonable standard of living and a future for the kids.

    3. Same thing for the Crimea and Ukraine. One of the reasons the Ukraine is vulnerable is that it is all but another failed nation. They really haven’t been able to build a viable independent society. There are something like 25,000 paramilitary troops to protect the oligarches that own all the money.

    Crimea and the Ukraine are likely to cost Russia more than they get out of it by a lot. Right now, Ukraine is deep in debt to just about everyone, including the Russians for their natural gas supplies.

    4. Just guessing based on data but, if we isolate Russia as the fascists they are and wait, they might well repeat the USSR. Stumble along for a while and bleed out money until they collapse again.

    The world is heavily interconnected these days and we all need that to keep our own countries going. China discovered this and went from a basket case to the second largest economy in a few decades. Trade not war and conquest is what yields prosperity.

  4. 4
    Al Dente

    According to the wikipedia article on Kristol he’s never served a day in the military. I’ve served in the Vietnam war and I’m tired of wars. I’m particularly tired of chicken hawks who have never and will never put their lives on the line insisting that war weariness doesn’t exist among Americans.

  5. 5
    Dalillama, Schmott Guy

    raven

    sometimes self defense is called for

    Against who, FFS?

  6. 6
    raven

    sometimes self defense is called for

    Against who, FFS?

    Who knows right now? We are occasionally attacked.

    The last one of note was the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks by Al Qaeda. How many thousands of dead people and destroyed skyscrapers do you need to see to determine you were…attacked?

    We also have treaties and allies as part of our national defense. NATO is one of them.

  7. 7
    matty1

    Empires like the Roman and Soviet ones aren’t usually long term cost effective or viable.

    The Soviet’s I’ll grant you, the Roman Empire lasted somewhere between 503 and 2186 years depending on your definitions. I can’t think of a huge number of nations that were viable on a more long term basis.

  8. 8
    pocketnerd

    Merciless Hell, why does Bil Kristol, notorious for being consistently wrong, still have a mouthpiece for these idiot views?

    (Oh, and Bill: I did serve. I am a war veteran, as are my father and both grandfathers. I come from a long line of men and women who have proudly served our country. And we don’t appreciate our lives being pissed away for right-wing fever dreams. So shut your fucking gob.)

  9. 9
    sigurd jorsalfar

    Kristol clearly thinks it’s perfectly fine for someone who didn’t serve in the military to advocate for sending more soldiers to their inevitable deaths …

    It’s worse than this. The letter he cites approvingly shows that he doesn’t think it’s merely perfectly fine for someone who didn’t serve to advocate for war, but that it’s essential. ONLY a person who has fought in a war is allowed to be war-weary.

  10. 10
    raven

    sometimes self defense is called for

    Against who, FFS?

    Or, today, our main enemies are internal, IMO.

    The complex of Oogedy Boogedy xianity, rightwing extremism, racism, misogyny, supply side economics, science hatred, and the oligarch driven increase in economic inequality. They may yet accomplish what the Russian and Chinese commies never could.

    The Roman, British, and Soviet empires mostly fell from within. As Toynbee pointed out, of 21 civilizations that fell, 19 of them fell from within.

    FWIW, economic inequality reliably leads to political instability. We’ve seen economic inequality increase for many decades now and are becoming politically unstable. And no one has any idea how to stop it.

  11. 11
    Marcus Ranum

    at a cost of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars

    I’ve gotta call you on this one, Ed. “Thousands” of lives is typically only what the US and its allies lose. “Hundreds of thousands of lives” is a better way to put it — that way you’re counting the victims, too.

  12. 12
    nichrome

    Charles Pierce is also warmonger-weary in this lovely rant:
    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bill-kristol-war-weariness-031814

  13. 13
    laurentweppe

    Kristol clearly thinks it’s perfectly fine for someone who didn’t serve in the military to advocate for sending more soldiers to their inevitable deaths

    Kristol clearly think that it’s perfectly fine for aristocrats to send commoners to war.

  14. 14
    dhall

    Russia has a fairly long history of wanting the Crimea, and has fought to control it a few times in the past. Originally, tsarist Russia wanted it in order to have ports that were ice-free year round, and beginning, I believe, with Peter the Great, in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, he began the drive toward the Black Sea. He didn’t make it, but armies of Catherine the Great succeeded. The British, French and Ottoman Turks also fought against the Russians in the mid-1800s–the Crimean War–to stop Russian southward advance at the expense of the Ottomans, and one of the reasons was the Russian desire to have access to the Mediterranean. In short, there have been Russian naval bases there for a very long time. Like many, I think what’s happened is horrible–when the voting for a referendum is so skewed, it’s obvious that many of the Crimeans who wanted Russia out didn’t vote, as they considered the referendum illegal. The annexation by Putin is also anything but proper. But I don’t think the US can do anything about it other than diplomatically. It’s just too bad that Chernobyl isn’t in Crimea–when the USSR let Ukraine go, they also left that mess behind.
    And maybe it’s a minor point, but right now, the traffic to and from the space station relies on the Russian space program; neither George W. nor Obama has done much to replace the shuttle fleet with anything.

  15. 15
    Marcus Ranum

    Who knows right now? We are occasionally attacked.

    Those were non-state actors (or “barely state” at best) and the full weight of a military oriented toward intercontinental force projection is unnecessary, even farcical to deploy against them. The last time a state committed an act of war against the US military would be when Israeli jets attacked the Liberty and killed 34 and wounded 170+. Before that, would be Korea, but that wasn’t “us” being attacked, that was South Korea. The Spanish-American war was fought under false pretenses (it was a powder-room spark that blew up the Maine) and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was the navy fucking up and shooting at itself. Etc. Etc. The litany of manufactured bloody shirts goes on and on…

    You must be referring to the War of 1812?

  16. 16
    dhall

    Whoops – I meant the early 17th and 18th centuries for Peter the Great. Sorry about that.

  17. 17
    dingojack

    Sort off topic I guess, but still (forgive the initial sound quality, it gets better). One can almost hear the order passing down the ranks: ‘Walk, trot, charge!’
    :( Dingo

  18. 18
    jesse

    raven–

    I’d say your historical analysis is a bit skewed.

    First on being attacked– yes, Al Quaeda was a terrorist attack, but that doesn’t always call for a military response. Remember, the record-breaking terrorist attack was Oklahoma City. I don’t recall anyone saying that as a result we should send troops to go after militia groups. We treated it as a criminal matter. That does a few things: first, it denies the perpetrators political legitimacy. This is why, BTW, the Brits were so upset about treating the IRA prisoners as POWs. They were, in British eyes, criminals. (There’s a whole other argument here but that is the short version). Secondly, it helps focus on the problem at hand. Non-state actors by definition deny you a target, and sending troops to any country to fight terrorism is a losing game. Often the local government has nothing to do with it — any more than the governors of Michigan or Kansas had anything to do with McVeigh. Sending troops to deal with criminals plays right into the hands of terrorists of any stripe. When the US attacked Iraq, and Afghanistan, bin Laden was a happy man because we handed him a huge political victory — one that would outlive Al Qaeda.

    The USSR fell apart because of internal problems, but open revolt wasn’t really one of them. I have been to the USSR, and I can tell you that the issues were political ones– the populace had been de-politicized, in fact. With no way to effectively air grievances and a clear problems in raising the standard of living (Russians were not fools, and they would see ostensibly working class people, like German factory workers, able to travel to Moscow and buy the place up), well, there wasn’t much reason to cooperate and go to work in the morning, or do all the little things that make the system function. de-politicizing means that there’s no incentive to engage, and that leaves the door open for people like the oligarchs to fill the vacuum, which they did. (I would argue that a similar phenomenon has been happening in the US, by the way, though from a different direction).

    Another problem was that in one sense the Russiana pioneered “just in time” production. If one piece of the system fell out, then the whole chain got messed up. I saw this first hand — tons of food in Kiev, and nothing in the store in Leningrad, and all because Ivan couldn’t get a spare part for a truck because Sasha didn’t come to work that day and if you messed up part of the schedule… it was a very brittle system in that regard.

    Most people think the USSR (and the Roman Empire) were held together by terror. That simply is not the case. The Central Asian nations joined the USSR voluntarily (there were good reasons to do so then). And your life as a peasant in 1905 Russia was materially better by the 1950s. The standard of living in the USSR was about the same as Western Europe up until the 70s or so. That’s when things started to fall apart. Romans also managed to hold things together because they weren’t just rolling troops in; they offered material benefits like trading with far-flung parts of the world. As long as you paid taxes and such, fine. Remember also that a good number of the later emperors and generals were born far away from Italy. More than one was African.

    Understand that Crimea was part of Russia until the 1950s. The population was and is largely Russian, and before that Tatar. So the Russians do have something of a claim here, if a loose one.

    By the way, you should look up Rudolf Bahro. He predicted many of the problems that the USSR would have back in the 1960s from a Communist perspective; he was a dissident. His economic analysis is still a welcome antidote to capitalist triumphalism.

    On defense: the US spends more than the next top 10 militaries combined. We can afford to cut back some. You realize that a single aircraft carrier has the same number of planes on it as the entire Iranian Air force? That the only countries that have more than one are Italy, japan, and the UK. (they each have 2). There are a dozen others scattered among various nations but the US has 10 — that’s about a third of the carrier fleet of the entire world. And I don’t think any others are nuclear-powered.

    Tell me, what nation is going to attack us next? With what? The North Koreans are going to lob a missile somewhere? Kim Jong Un is a lot of things but he’s demonstrated that stupid and insane are not among them. (The DPRK is terrible, but that doesn’t make the leadership insane or cartoon monsters). The Chinese aren’t going to attack Hawaii, or Japan, or do something idiotic to Taiwan. And the Chinese have every incentive to make sure the US is economically healthy, to a point. (Remember all those US Bonds they hold? You think they want the prices to drastically drop?)

    I do agree that much of what Putin does is not in Russia’s long-term interest. But there are many issues there with the leadership’s fear of secession and the like. Remember, the US didn’t cotton to it well when the South decided to pick up stakes and secede. The Ukraine is a separate nation, but the Ossetians and other groups have been part of Russia for some time now, and the feeling in Russia is sometimes one of being surrounded by enemies. Remember also that the US supported many of the “color revolutions” — what would the reaction here be if Canada and Mexico both were suddenly replaced with Russia-friendly governments that immediately wanted to sign up for a military alliance? Wanna bet we’d be fomenting secessionists in Quebec? Or Chiapas?

  19. 19
    Michael Heath

    I conclude that war-weariness generally results in a more realistic assessment of the marginal utility of certain military engagement opportunities. That a nation that is less war-weary considers such opportunities with far too much optimism and in a far too abstract manner. The Iraq and Viet Nam wars are illustrative examples.

  20. 20
    Alareth

    Did you volunteer to fight oppression in foreign lands?

    Having served in the military I don’t recall that being in any of the oaths I took when joining.

  21. 21
    robertbaden

    Don’t forget we are coming up on the 100 year anniversary of the first great anti-terrorist war. Austria-Hungary trying to punish Serbia.

  22. 22
    dingojack

    robertbaden – speaking of which (yes I’ve posted it many times before, but it bears repeating):
    Dulce Et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen (March 1918).
    Dingo

  23. 23
    Olav

    Jesse #18:

    I do agree that much of what Putin does is not in Russia’s long-term interest.

    Indeed. I think he knows it, too, and does not really care. Vladimir Putin’s main project is Vladimir Putin. Insofar as he is concerned with the long term interests of his country, it is only because he would like to be seen as its successful and indispensable leader. He is not going to always make the best choices and decisions on that basis. Especially if he starts to believe that he can do no wrong himself.

  24. 24
    sigurd jorsalfar

    Ed: OT, but just so you know, I tried but couldn’t post a comment in the next post “Levin Flips Out on Atheist Caller”. I’ve noticed that no one else has posted a comment there either. It might have something to do with the tags used to embed the video.

  25. 25
    dingojack

    sigurd jorsalfar – yep you’re right. After I hit ‘submit comment’ the screen went white and nothing happened until it fell over. But I dunnn why that happened.
    Dingo

  26. 26
    democommie

    I’m not paying that much attention to the Russia/Crimea thing but I’m not sure that Vlad the e-mailer has completely pulled the teeth of those pesky Chechens.

    “Especially if he starts to believe that he can do no wrong himself.”

    You KNOW who else thought that way.

    @24: Me too.

  27. 27
    Nick Gotts

    robertbaden@21,

    Austria certainly had a better case for invading Serbia than the USA did for invading Afghanistan (let alone Iraq!) in the wake of 9/11. The assassination in Sarajevo was planned by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević (“Apis”), head of Serbian Military Intelligence and of the terror group The Black Hand – although the Austrians only had strong suspicions it was organized from Belgrade. As it happens, I’ve just been reading The Russian Origins of the First World War by Sean McMeekin – who thinks desire to conquer Istanbul/Constantinople/”Tsargrad” and the Straits was crucial in Russia’s decision to support Serbia.

    But I’m sure that for every country involved in that war, there’s a historian who thinks it was primarily responsible, and another who thinks it was an innocent victim. I also have out of the library at present a (distinctly cranky) book that claims it was all a plot by an English “Secret Elite”, who had bought and manipulated Russian and French ministers as part of a far-reaching plan for global conquest!

  28. 28
    Félix Desrochers-Guérin

    He said that Iraq would be a “two month war, not an eight year war”

    That is what should appear under the names of pundits when they appear on tv, rather than the name of whatever “think tank” they crawled out of.

    @Marcus Ranum

    The last time a state committed an act of war against the US military would be when Israeli jets attacked the Liberty

    No, that would be Iraq, actually. Saddam Hussein, of all people, was one of the privileged few who shot at the US Navy and got away with it.

  29. 29
    Amphiox

    The US could easily defend itself from any foreseeable near future threat with less than half of its current military spending, assuming that it is spent with even the teensiest bit of competency.

    With just two exceptions:

    1. The alien invasion

    and

    2. The Second Coming

    It is far more practical to build a strong, healthy society (a happy citizenry is a more loyal and unified citizenry), with good diplomacy (lots of friends, few enemies), and a strong, flexible economy (you can switch over to war production quickly in times of need, and switch back quickly when the war is over and it is time to rebuild) than to be on constant war footing bleeding your treasuries dry staying always prepared for imaginary threats that may or may not ever materialize. It is almost as if the US learned the exactly wrong lesson from WWII.

  30. 30
    Marcus Ranum

    @Félix Desrochers-Guérin

    Oh! Right! The Stark!
    The French really regretted selling those Mirages and Exocets, didn’t they?

  31. 31
    Amphiox

    WWI in a nutshell: never had so many died for so little, because of the decisions of so few.

  32. 32
    Raging Bee

    Bill Kristol wholeheartedly supported two wars of aggression — one of which was totally unprovoked and based on bogus intel, and both of which (predictably) turned out to be long-running resource-sapping quagmires that did our legitimate interests more harm than good. The problem he’s talking about is real, and he played a very visible role in creating it. So fuck him — he’s just another worse-than-useless phony patriot.

  33. 33
    robertbaden

    We’re not suffering from the Treaty of Versailles, either, even if we are war weary.

  34. 34
    Rick Pikul

    @jesse

    A couple details:

    Understand that Crimea was part of Russia until the 1950s. The population was and is largely Russian, and before that Tatar. So the Russians do have something of a claim here, if a loose one.

    Well, it was part of Russia because they annexed it from Ukraine in 1922. Before then, whenever Russia had Crimea they also had most of Ukraine.

    Besides, the treaty that had Ukraine give up its nukes to Russia also had Russia giving up any claim to Crimea.

    You realize that a single aircraft carrier has the same number of planes on it as the entire Iranian Air force? That the only countries that have more than one are Italy, japan, and the UK. (they each have 2). There are a dozen others scattered among various nations but the US has 10 — that’s about a third of the carrier fleet of the entire world. And I don’t think any others are nuclear-powered.

    India also has 2: INS Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes, Centaur class) and INS Vikramaditya (ex-Baku/Admiral Gorshkov, Kiev class).

    The Royal Navy has only dropped to 2 because they are replacing the Ark Royal rather than refitting her, there are currently two under construction.

    The French also have 4: The Charles de Gaulle and three Mistral-class.

    However: The count of 10 for the US is for full-deck supercarriers. Restricting the count to just full deck carriers reduces the rest of the world to just 4, (one each for China, France, Russia and Brazil), with two more under construction, (the UK), none of which are as big as the Nimitz-class or the new Ford-class. The full count for the US is _19_ aircraft carriers, 1 more than the rest of the world combined.

  35. 35
    Area Man

    Every time I hear this, I wonder: Did you serve? Did you volunteer to fight oppression in foreign lands? Did your son or brother or husband?

    No, but I sat and watched as $1 trillion of our nation’s treasury went up in smoke, much of it unaccounted for and clearly winding up in the hands of corrupt foreign officials and cronyist American contractors, while the people who thought that wasting this money was a good idea used the budget mess they created to argue against spending a single dime on making Americans better off. And I watched as, in exchange for this outrageous sum, we saw thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners die, entire regions become destabilized, one atrocity after the other committed, and most awesomest of all, the threat of terrorism increase as a result of our actions.

    So fuck you, I have every right to complain.

  36. 36
    jesse

    @Rick — I was counting the CATOBARs and STOBARs and not counting the helicopter-oriented ones like the Mistrals. But point taken.

    As to Russia and the Crimean peninsula — well, that’s why I said the claim was a loose one. You could make a case that the people in the Crimea have been historically pro-Russian and got kind of messed with in the deal worked out in 1992, but that’s probably it. The Tatars aren’t happy with either.

    Crimea as I understand it was formally annexed by the Russian Empire in the 18th century; then it changed hands a few times after WW I during the Russian Civil War, the gift (of sorts) to the Ukraine seemed an administrative measure more than anything else. Then it was the Crimean Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic. Transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. Then back to ASSR status in 1991. So generally it would seem that the Russian claim is tenuous, the Ukrainian one as much so.

    You know, the disintegration of the USSR seems to have created a lot more problems than it solved…

  37. 37
    felidae

    Silly little Billy (The Grinning Idiot) seems to be in a race to be named the most consistently wrong right wing pundit with the odious Dick Morris Even Bill’s father publicly expressed regret on how often his son was wrong The only adverse consequences Bill faced from his advocacy is a bad case of hemorrhoids from sitting on his ass at a desk or in a TV studio

  38. 38
    pocketnerd

    Thus Spake ZaraFélix Desrochers-Guérin:

    He said that Iraq would be a “two month war, not an eight year war”

    That is what should appear under the names of pundits when they appear on tv, rather than the name of whatever “think tank” they crawled out of.

    This would certainly do much for promoting awareness on current events.

    “Thank you for your input on why the US should go to war against Russia, Bill Kristol, who — I remind our viewers — said Iraq would be a ‘two-month war.’ with ‘terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East’. Next up we’ll hear from special guest Donald Rumsfeld, who underestimated the cost of the war by a factor of over one hundred, but for some inscrutable reason still enjoys tremendous influence on foreign policy discussion. Later tonight we’ll hear from several talking heads who promised the price of gasoline would drop back under a dollar… but first, over to you, Bob.”

  39. 39
    democommie

    THE FUCKING SELF-STARTING FUCKING ADS ARE FUCKING RUNNING AFUCKINGGAIN! TELLING TEH TECHIES ABOUT IT IS A COM[PLETE FUCKING WASTE OF TIME.

  40. 40
    democommie

    This:

    http://penigma.blogspot.com/2014/03/watch-as-1000-years-of-european-borders.html#comment-form

    is lots better than reading allathem borin’ books.

  41. 41
    pacal

    It is worth remembering that Kristol is a follower of the late Leo Strauss and has such codes his real beliefs in such a manner has to hide his true opinions to all but a “worthy” elite, Basically the notion is that government exists so that the “worthy” elite can contemplate how wonderful it is and be protected from the masses who will be manipulated and controlled. Foreign wars play a large role in distracting and manipulating the masses so this elite” can spend its time navel gazing its wonderfulness.

    To people like Kristol the bulk of the population simply doesn’t matter, they exist to be used by a “worthy” elite, and for little other purpose.

  42. 42
    magistramarla

    Yeah, I’m war-weary and I can answer his questions.
    I didn’t serve, but most of my family has. My Dad lied about his age when he signed up for WWII. He was an assistant cook on a ship in Pearl Harbor and watched other ships sink all around them.
    He went on to serve in Korea and then as a DOD employee in Vietnam.
    My husband served as an active duty AF officer from 1981-1992, and still serves as a civilian employee today.
    His Dad and two of his brothers served as Marines and one brother served in the Navy.
    Our son served in the Iraq War as a Marine, and we have a son-in-law who is currently serving in the AF.
    Somehow I do not believe that Kristol would respect my opinions or those of my husband, since we are very much liberal freethinkers.

  43. 43
    Crudely Wrott

    War is a waste. In the case of Rootin Tootin Vladimir Putin’s latest highjinks that goes doubly.

    Listen: Vlad is going to make an ass of himself, all by himself. Best course of action involves no mobilization of forces of shipments of assplody things. Pointing and laughing will be sufficient.

    What sucks is that the folks in the middle will suffer. Naught can be done save them salvaging what they can.

    Putin will go down hard come the day. Just watch. His billionaire buddies will run out of sycophantism before long. That’ll put an end to Vlad’s ego trip.

  44. 44
    Rick Pikul

    @jesse

    Yes, Russia annexed Crimea in 1783. By that point it had also annexed about half of what is now Ukraine and it was in the process of annexing all but the westernmost tip around L’vov, (completing the process in 1795) as its part in the partitions of Poland. Once Ukraine comes into existence as a nation-state for the first time in 1917, Crimea is included.

    As for the post WWI events: Note that the handing of things to Russia was all done by the Ukrainian Soviet ‘government’ which only existed because they decided that they didn’t like the outcome of the election, (i.e. the Bolsheviks lost), so they held a new one where those who opposed them weren’t allowed to vote and backed up the result with the guns of the Red Army.

  45. 45
    Athywren

    Sometimes I wonder if people really think these arguments through… in order to legitimately oppose war, I must have been in the military? Is my opposition to crime also illegitimate, owing to my never taken part in a bank heist? (No, I’m not saying the two are equivalent.) My opposition to war is a large part of the reason that I’ve never joined the military, although it’s not the only part – I live in the UK, where we’re not all that militaristic, though we do still play into the idea that a soldier is automatically a hero (No, I’m not saying that no soldiers are heroes.) and I’m generally more suited, psychologically, to chess or a respectful debate than keeping my cool in the face of enemy gunfire. I’ve never held a gun, I’ve never seen a friend die in front of me, I don’t suffer from PTSD. I’m just revolted by the idea that common people should kill common people because politicians refuse to find equitable solutions or fight their own battles.

  46. 46
    marcus

    Athywren @ 45 “Sometimes I wonder if people really think these arguments through…”

    Simple logic answers this one:
    1.”Thinking” requires some sort of cognitive functioning.
    2.”Thinking through” requires the ability to conceptualize consequences (see 1.)
    3. “Bill Kristol ”

    Answer: Obviously not.

  47. 47
    Raging Bee

    Vlad is going to make an ass of himself, all by himself. Best course of action involves no mobilization of forces of shipments of assplody things. Pointing and laughing will be sufficient.

    People said the same thing about Hitler back in the day. They were wrong then, and you’re wrong now. If you really think fascist dictators with huge armies can be laughed away, then you haven’t been paying attention.

    As I predicted, Russian forces now appear to be preparing to make a move on part of Moldova. So no, pointing and laughing doesn’t look like a solution. Get your heads out of your asses, folks.

  48. 48
    dingojack

    Athywren – Wait a minute! You mean Kelly’s Heroes wasn’t a documentary?!?
    :) Dingo

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site