Is it possible for more than two things being true at once?
Scientists recently managed to get three things to be true at once, but it only lasted for a couple seconds. It may be possible for as many as four, even five things to be true at the same time, but that's purely theoretical at this point.
B-b-b-b-b-but China might, possibly, at some point in the future, try to reclaim Taiwan! Both sides! Two things true at once! Me speculating about something possibly happening is the exact same as the thing actually happening!
There's 195 countries in the world and we're engaged in like 7 different wars so that's 188 wars that Trump has prevented by not randomly deciding to attack them /s
That as an argument falls apart pretty quickly when you remember they made a blitz attack for Kiev on the first day into areas not expressing a desire to separate.
That logic relies on a big assumption that I don't agree with, that fighting has to be contained to the specific territory in dispute. If the United States invaded Greenland and Greenland attacked NYC, despite Greenland not having any claim on NYC, that wouldn't really be a mark against Greenland. It's a matter of military strategy that if you can destroy enemy capabilities or force them to defend multiple fronts or knock them out entirely, you'll probably try.
I said the USA did not start this war, and you are saying it was started by local separatists. Which back to the Revolutionary war comparison that’s spot on again
I didn't exactly say it was started by local separatists. I said that who started it depends on which political entities you consider legitimate. If the separatists are more legitimate than the central government, you could say that the central government started it. In the same way, if you consider the American revolutionaries more legitimate than the British, then you could argue that the British started that war by infringing the American right to self-governance and popular sovereignty.
To use another comparison: the Vietnam War is generally seen as an act of US aggression, but at the time, it was claimed to be a defensive war, protecting the Republic of Vietnam from foreign supplied rebels. The reason that interpretation fell out of favor is because the Republic of Vietnam is generally regarded as having been a US puppet.
Now, I personally don't know to what degree each side represents popular will or to what extent they are just proxies of foreign governments. But my point is that if you allow the other user's claim that the Ukrainian government was set up through US meddling, that significantly muddles the question of who started what, whether the separatists had justification to declare independence and whether Russia had justification to respond to their requests.
You fail to link “us meddling” to justification for a war. Or more accurately an invasion of a sovereign nation.
A bunch of armed men seized parliament and established a new government which banned opposition parties. Another bunch of armed men seized local government buildings and declared independence, after which they requested Russia send troops to come to their aid. Each side claims the other was foreign-backed while theirs was a legitimate expression of popular will.
Whether Russia invaded or responded to a request for aid depends on the legitimacy of the separatists and of the central government. When France sent troops to the British colonies in America, we don't generally consider that an invasion.
If the US meddled in overthrowing Ukraine's previous government and picking out the new one (and there's some evidence of that) then it calls into question whether the central government has more legitimacy than the separatists, and whether they really had the right to send tanks in to suppress the separatist rebellion.
The story of the emperor with no clothes has a very optimistic view of society because in real life the boy who shouted out that he had no clothes would be beaten with a stick.
I had a part time job at a UPS warehouse in Tennessee when covid hit. We got a new manager, and so they gathered everyone in the warehouse together into a small break area, everyone was right next to each other and nobody was wearing a mask, and the manager gave us all a speech about how much he cared about our safety. There were TV screens in the break areas that had been set to display information about covid safety guidelines that were being blatantly violated.
The same day, my supervisor informed me of a new policy: they'd had too many people "faking" being sick and calling out, so from now on you have to come into work even if you're sick, and they'll decide if you're sick enough to go home. I with I had gotten it in writing because what she told me was definitely illegal, I actually called OSHA afterwards but it was my word against theirs. This was the only time I've quit a job with no notice, I remember it clear as day, I told her, "People are dying" and she replied, "I have a business to run," and I said, "I don't care."
I wanted to set the damn building on fire. I was fortunate to have saved enough to take time off work because I lost all confidence that there was anywhere around me that would be a safe place to work.
“Democrats in the House and Senate [are] focusing on lowering your costs, dealing with affordability. Republicans, led by Donald Trump, are focused on spending treasure and, God forbid, lives on military adventurism overseas,” Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer told reporters this week, just before the chamber voted to advance a resolution halting further attacks on Venezuela without congressional permission.
Lmao Chuck Schumer is trying to play this card? Hey, how did you feel about throwing away countless lives and money in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about all the money we're spending to help Israel commit genocide? Maybe if some of that had been spent on making things more affordable, we wouldn't be in this situation.
If Chuck Schumer actually believed that for a second, we'd be hearing about his resignation and suicide. It's just a soulless ghoul saying whatever voters want to hear, just so long as it doesn't involve bashing ICE.
315 grants were terminated in October, ending support for 223 projects worth approximately $7.5 billion,
Deciding that the government had violated grantees’ rights to equal protection, Mehta only ordered a return to the status quo, reinstating seven grants totaling $27.6 million.
Let's be clear, that's $27.6 million out of $7,500 million. 99.6% of the cuts still go through.
Don’t judge what a tankie or Nazi is by insults on the internet, hyperbole and bullshit rule.
Words are defined by common use. If the common use of the word "tankie" is to throw it at people who oppose war, then that's what it means now. You can say it's defined as being pro- war, but I've never seen it used that way.
Back in the day when word originated they loved the T-34 tank and Russia in WW2 and so on.
Well sure, WWII is basically the go-to example of a necessary and justified war. There was a time in my life when I labelled myself as a pacifist and the counter-example that everyone always brought up was WWII.
At that time, my position was that that was one exception from like 70 years ago and we shouldn't make a rule from the exception considering how many unjustified wars have been fought since then. Now, my position is a little bit more flexible and moderate to account for that and a handful of other cases: now I say, "no war but class war," and WWII was a class war.
However, my position hasn't actually changed much in practice since those days. The vast majority of wars and violence are systemic and fought for bourgeois interests, so I still oppose them. Only very rarely does violence happen in the opposite direction, for example if we compare the death tolls of Luigi Mangione to Brian Thompson.
And what do you think the “tank” in “tankie” comes from?
It comes from accusing people who oppose war of supporting the other side's tanks, as I just explained to you in my previous comment.
Somebody just needs to give them some D20's.