Ukrainian War: Prelude to Worse?

[ScytheBearer]

The right to protect ones self and their property is fundemental. But the right to be armed in overthrowing government is mentally ill at best. Either you use the tools of societal agreement ... or you cross the line and become an enemy to those who can . Then the question is ... what do we the people who can still maintain society do with those types of people ?

 

Or point blank ... the threat of violence will not be given value in the court of diplomacy.

You have missed the lessons of history. All great revolutions from the American, to the French to the Russian and even the British to an lesser extent, have been bloody and violent. Consider those bloody revolutions as a society protecting themselves, their families and their property, defending their "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".

 

It's just a matter of scale. Me vs you, us vs them, ours vs theirs, the powerless vs the empowered. It's just scale.

 

And remember, diplomacy is only a continuation of violence, just more polite and couched in friendlier terms. However, the subtle threat of violence underlying in diplomacy is very powerful indeed.

Edited June 23, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[HeyYou]

Even in diplomacy, there is the implied threat of violence. Negotiate in good faith, or, we will simply enforce what we want, by force of arms. And of course, that assumes that both sides can find some common ground, to come to an agreement. Once that agreement is reached, both sides need to abide by it. If they don't, violence comes next.

[Aurielius]

Even in diplomacy, there is the implied threat of violence. Negotiate in good faith, or, we will simply enforce what we want, by force of arms. And of course, that assumes that both sides can find some common ground, to come to an agreement. Once that agreement is reached, both sides need to abide by it. If they don't, violence comes next.

"Diplomacy is just an extension of warfare played across a table instead of a battlefield."

There is always the implied threat of escalating to the battlefield.

[Oblivionaddicted]

 

The right to protect ones self and their property is fundemental. But the right to be armed in overthrowing government is mentally ill at best. Either you use the tools of societal agreement ... or you cross the line and become an enemy to those who can . Then the question is ... what do we the people who can still maintain society do with those types of people ?

 

Or point blank ... the threat of violence will not be given value in the court of diplomacy.

You have missed the lessons of history. All great revolutions from the American, to the French to the Russian and even the British to an lesser extent, have been bloody and violent. Consider those bloody revolutions as a society protecting themselves, their families and their property, defending their "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".

 

It's just a matter of scale. Me vs you, us vs them, ours vs theirs, the powerless vs the empowered. It's just scale.

 

And remember, diplomacy is only a continuation of violence, just more polite and couched in friendlier terms. However, the subtle threat of violence underlying in diplomacy is very powerful indeed.

 

The abolitions of segregation, apartheid and independence of India were made without any violence but you strangely never mentioned them.

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

The right to protect ones self and their property is fundemental. But the right to be armed in overthrowing government is mentally ill at best. Either you use the tools of societal agreement ... or you cross the line and become an enemy to those who can . Then the question is ... what do we the people who can still maintain society do with those types of people ?

 

Or point blank ... the threat of violence will not be given value in the court of diplomacy.

You have missed the lessons of history. All great revolutions from the American, to the French to the Russian and even the British to an lesser extent, have been bloody and violent. Consider those bloody revolutions as a society protecting themselves, their families and their property, defending their "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".

 

It's just a matter of scale. Me vs you, us vs them, ours vs theirs, the powerless vs the empowered. It's just scale.

 

And remember, diplomacy is only a continuation of violence, just more polite and couched in friendlier terms. However, the subtle threat of violence underlying in diplomacy is very powerful indeed.

 

The abolitions of segregation, apartheid and independence of India were made without any violence but you strangely never mentioned them.

 

 

Your kidding, right.

 

The British killed hundreds of thousands Hindus and Muslims during India's drive to independence from British rule. And the Hindus and Muslims were no nicer to each other following independence. Gandhi may have preached non-violence, but the British weren't obliged to be peaceful. Nor were the Muslims being driven from their homes necessarily peaceful. And the Hindus who were opposed to Muslims in government positions definitely did not adhere to non-violence. And that war continues, as today, Hindus routinely kill or assault Muslims for simply eating beef.

 

The South African Arfrikans government killed hundreds of thousands of blacks during South Africa's drive to end apartheid. Whole townships were burned to the ground. And the blacks were no better, attacking government buildings, killing government officials, etc. The ending of apartheid in South Africa was anything but peaceful.

 

The abolition of slavery led to a Civil War in the North American United States. Millions died in the effort to make that nation free of slavery. Further, that nation is still fighting that war, as enclaves of White Supremacist foment open warfare to drive the descendants of those imported as slaves from that nation.

[Mktavish]

OIC ... so the threat of violence keeps the niceties of peace ?

 

But what happens when I don't have those same niceties , and become aware ?

 

Yada yada about history all you want ... doesn't change anything with the current situation.

 

I myself have been witness to a certain ideology threatening a 2nd civil war since the Ruby Ridge incident.

 

And continually growing . I say ... Shut UP or Put UP ... hence no more diplomatic value in it.

[Pagafyr]

It's time for the women to tell the men of both sides, no more sex if you don't stop fighting.

[xrayy]

anyone else who wants to support putin and trump with weird arguments directly or indirectly?

 

seems the right place here !?

 

i pray day by day that both will be history now and forever. i need no history lesson for that.

they both showed that they are ready to destroy the world just unable control their dark ego and their power.

they don't even recognize how weird they act as long as some blinded or short sighted or even reckless people still support them.

 

@pagafyr - seems that some russian soldiers misunderstood something while treating ukrainian civilians not as human beings.

 

who gave them the right to act like this? putin, kyrill or even another special russian god ?

[Mktavish]

It's time for the women to tell the men of both sides, no more sex if you don't stop fighting.

 

Howdy Paga ... haven't seen you for awhile ... must've been to busy with that evil plan to turn pizza into a breakfast cereal ?

 

Well good to see ya ;)

[Mktavish]

anyone else who wants to support putin and trump with weird arguments directly or indirectly?

 

 

Actually I do support tRump for president of Ukraine . Which I'm not sure we can wait till 2024 , so we might want to just move up the election to 2022 here in the US .

Then with another tRump loss ... we could swap out 40 million tRumplicans with 40 million Ukrainians as citizens.

Then get on with the business of making the world a better place ... while Putin and tRump resume their bromance.