So your contention is that Nation A considering joining an alliance that Nation B doesn’t like - not actually joining, just considering - is a provocation worthy of military invasion?

Jesus what a world that would be.

I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree as I see a fundamental difference between a multi national joint military operation targeting international terrorists and a unilateral military operation aimed at reconstituting the USSR.

Updated

What on earth are you talking about occupying Syria?

Edit: they’re misconstruing the 32-country military coalition that’s been trying to degrade Da’esh since 2014 as the US military by itself occupying sovereign territory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_the_Islamic_State

Some may remember the breathless daily & weekly map updates on the news showing areas controlled by Da’esh changing. Might remember the coalition partnering with various groups of differing militancy & reliability. I think including us (the coalition) fucking over Iraqi Kurds…? I believe because Syria hated them? Or loved them?

So, y’know, absolutely nothing like Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine because Putin was afraid of Ukraine getting too chummy with NATO countries, possibility even considering joining NATO.

If the point of supporting Ukraine is to support the international order of respecting borders, then an absolutist interpretation would mean you stop at your border when repelling invaders.

On the other hand, that would certainly result in invaders loading up on personnel and materiel on their side of the border until they reached some critical mass for a re invasion.

A lot of people might not remember the first Gulf War where the international community defending Kuwait stopped at the Iraq border. I think it could be argued that was a mistake on multiple levels, even ignoring everything we know that came after.

Violence must be organized and accountable to be just. Non-violence is always preferred, and is always the initial approach.

But if there is a credible threat, defensive violence is OK as long as whoever is being violent accepts whatever accountability may come.

I’m conflicted about it, but the fact is one reason the US has been so successful in leading the world in relative peace (as compared to WWII and before, not compared to the ideal) is because we have so much capacity for violence in our back pocket.

“Talk softly and carry a big stick.”

I think Cheney and most pre-Gingrich Republicans have a commitment to the preservation of the Constitution and the Republic. Once Gingrich the philanderer came in and switched the Republican Party into all partisanship mode, things changed and people who don’t put the Constitution first started seeping into the party.

Cheney was an establishment in the party long before that, so he still has those values.

But a commitment to preserve and defend the Constitution is probably the only thing I have in common with him. I welcome him insofar as that. Harris will do that. Trump will not.

For example, I don’t think it’s cool to shoot your friends in the face with a shotgun. Also I’m not a big fan of wars for oil.

This is Zuck’s characterisation. No direct quotes. No attachments (that I’ve seen). He calls it pressure. He says they wanted to censor “satire & humor.” In fact this BS letter is what the original article quoted.

I love how he just uncritically and with absolute credulity accepts excerpts from a letter written by Zuck with no supporting evidence, no examples of what “pressure” looked like, etc.

I can’t believe these people are still so butt hurt about the perfectly reasonable actions taken by the US and State governments and governments worldwide in response to a once in a century global respiratory DEADLY pandemic that killed millions and millions of humans.

And as far as FB (and other social media) goes, fuck em. And fuck the users. Types of speech can be illegal. Defamation (lying about someone) and false advertising (lying about a product or service) can be illegal even though it’s definitely speech. These have “lying” in common, which to me implies there must be something about lying (specifically misrepresenting reality) that weakens typical 1st Amendment protections.

But it’s clear what this guy is most sad about is the traffic he got while his article about Woodstock going on during a lull in the comparatively mild pandemic that was “active” at the time (no meaningful H3N2 activity in the US at the time) went away when FB rightly changed the algorithm to not boost his stupid irrelevant “analysis.”

But people like the writer of this article are either too addled by conspiracy galaxy brain or too committed to lying for money to care that they could really hurt people with their bullshit.

This guy needs to go to something less harmful like selling homeopathic tinctures or lying about the moon landing or flat earth or something.

Ok sure but if Person U from a large city comes to the city council meeting and asks for help because their neighbor, Person R, is building a new garage on Person U’s property, it’s understandable that people from around the city - no matter how far afield - might express support for Person U.

At the same time, if Person T or Person I or Person M from far across the city don’t express support, so what? What does it matter? Maybe they’re afraid of Person R. Maybe they truly don’t care. Maybe they hate person U.

Saudi Arabia, India, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates,

None of these “attenders” are in the same region as Ukraine.