Yet we still hold the largest economy on earth. I’d love to see the irony of this situation if our places were flipped.

▲▲Reply to this Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

13 Replies

@RebelScum76Constitution from Washington commented…4mos4MO

You've addressed none of my information about Zelensky's tyranny, about how he banned eleven opposition parties and an entire religious denomination, to which I may add that lots of the places Russia is attacking in fact wish to be a part of Russia. But let's set these major logical problems for you aside for just one moment and consider the absurd argument you've presented. You've made a syllogism argument, with a missing premise, to avoid directly using a fallacy. Your argument is

(1) Nations which have larger economies than others have a duty to intervene in the war… Read mores of nations with smaller economies. (This is the major premise, which you left unstated.)

▲ 4 ▲Reply to this Agree 2 Disagree 1 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@ImpeachmentWaspLibertarian from New York disagreed…4mos4MO

The banning of eleven opposition parties and an entire religious denomination in Ukraine, if true, is indeed concerning. Is it a simple power grab or a response to perceived foreign influence and potential national security threats? Remember, even democratic countries have been known to take extreme measures during times of crisis.

As for the assertion that many places Russia is attacking wish to be a part of Russia, it's essential to consider whether these sentiments are genuinely widespread or fueled by propaganda. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, for example, was met with… Read more a mix of support and opposition from the residents, and there are ongoing disputes over the legitimacy of the conducted referendum.

Regarding the notion that nations with larger economies have a duty to intervene in the wars of nations with smaller economies, I agree that this shouldn't be a blanket rule. However, it's also crucial to consider the broader geopolitical implications. The world is interconnected, and allowing aggressive behaviors to go unchecked could lead to instability that affects even the largest economies.

Your argument is well-structured and thought-provoking, but it raises some interesting questions. For instance, how do we balance the need for national security with respect for democratic values in a time of crisis? And in an interconnected world, at what point does a nation's aggressive behavior become a concern for all?

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 2 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@RebelScum76Constitution from Washington commented…4mos4MO

Here are the references that prove Zelensky's tyrannical actions did happen –

Zelensky’s War on Christianityhttps:frontpagemag.com/zelenskys-war-on-christianity/

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky bans 11 opposition partieshttps:rebelnews.com/ukrainian_president_volodymyr_zelensky_bans_11_opposition_parties

In your second sentence, ChatGPT committed a logical fallacy – the fallacy of Bifurc… Read moreation. Its argument assumes that tyrannical violations of basic civil liberties are either greedy power grabs or national security related, eliminating the possibility that it could be both at once, which just so happens to be the truth. Even if it is a response to national security threat on Zelensky's part, that gives him no right to outlaw opposition, regulate free speech, ban a Christian denomination, and consolidate the entire Ukrainian media into a state-operated propaganda cartel. Emergency war powers opens the door for all kinds of atrocious violations, we should always respect natural rights, no matter how dangerous that may prove. As Thomas Jefferson said "I prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful slavery."

I'm glad you brought up the Russian annexation of Crimea, because that in and of itself disproves the domino theory the far Left and their neocon cronies have been pushing. People then predicted it would instantly be followed by Russian invasions of dozens of other Eastern European countries, but were proved dead wrong when eight years of peace followed. The current solution for Ukraine is to negotiate a peace deal with Russia that cedes some of their territory to it but still allows for the existence of a Ukrainian state.

In response to your assertion that allowing Russia to attack Ukraine could lead to instability that effects us, I must point out that the most lethal threat to stability our Republic faces is the unprecedented debt of $34 trillion dollars – your personal share of that is $109,000 – every last American bears the brunt of this debt, and you, as a so-called "libertarian" are proposing that rather than reducing spending at this horrible time, when we're on the brink of the worst depression in world history, that we ship hundreds of billions of dollars MORE to fund the world's NEVER-ENDING WARS? That's the surest recipe in the world for economic instability!

As for balancing the need for national security with respect for democratic values, you've, again, committed the bifurcation or "either-or" fallacy by assuming there is no third possibility, there can only be national security or liberty, a stance I vehemently disagree with. We are most secure as a nation when everyone has basic civil liberties. The very thought that some liberties may need to be sacrificed because of conflict in the world makes me stand even firmer in my belief in Peace and Isolationism, because I do not want a catastrophic war to erode our liberties. We are teetering not only on the brink of the worst depression in history (as a libertarian, you ought to know a little about Mises and Austrian Economic Theory) but also on the brink of WORLD WAR III, which could exterminate innumerable innocent human beings.

As for when a nation's aggressive behaviour becomes a concern for all, my answer is that military and financial intervention in the foreign world is only ever justified if that nation has directly attacked your homeland.

By living in these delusions of empire and global utopia, and vainly and blithely trying to alter the fundamentals of human nature by ending wars, which are inevitable, we hazard everything we hold dear – our lives, liberties, and properties, our families, our values, and peace. I will leave you to consider whether subsidising Zelensky's authoritarian regime is worth these severe and horrible problems.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree 2 Link Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…4mos4MO

Zelensky is a president we can regulate as a world if their country survives. They’re applying for NATO, and many requirements are needing to be kept in order to do so, including anti-corruption standards. The fact that they’re doing that shows openness to positive change, including perfecting their democracy, as is required to join NATO. Putin was the aggressor in this war as well, he refuses a real democracy, he started the fight, he decides what candidates are even able to run. Zelensky isn’t great, but he’s better, he’s not closing himself off, and unlike the… Read more Afghani president during our exodus, he hasn’t left with helicopters full of Benjamin’s.

When I say that we have a larger economy, I mean we have more means to help, along with the largest military in the history of mankind. We swore to Ukraine before when they gave up their nukes, that we’d assist monetarily and with weaponry should Russia break their deal. Russia did just that, and as such, we help, because if our word is not solid, it is nothing. We must intervene because when Russia wins, we lose, so do the people of Ukraine, and so does the world. We promised, we must do it, and we gain massive benefits from it.

America will lose more if Ukraine loses, the grain exports and halting of European gas exports have already damaged the economy, as was proven in the last two years. If Ukraine falls, the world economy suffers. With the aid we give, if they maintain their independence, they will owe us, and the world economy as a whole will remain stronger as they can continue trade. This is basic economics on the global stage. The weak are not the evil, it is the corruption in their government, and their people do not deserve to suffer because we believe Zelensky is an *** Ukraine has lost enough, and it’s time they win.

Not to mention, with the aid we’ve already given, Ukraine has single-handedly degraded the Russian military more than it has been in decades, they’ve helped cripple the Russian economy and NATO has been emboldened as Europe sees a chance to stand against Russian oppression. America gains opportunities too: we have Ukraine our older weapons, our tech sitting in sheds that we normally don’t use. Because of this, it gives us the opportunity to replenish our stockpiles and prepare for any future attacks.

WE ALL BENEFIT, the people of Ukraine benefit, Russian citizens begin to see the disgusting conduct of their president, Ukraine’s government can be fixed, NATO can be emboldened, BRICS can be weakened, and the world economy gain gain independence from Russian trade. This isn’t a matter of just America and Ukraine, it is a matter of the world at large countering Russia, China, and the rest of the BRICS alliance.

▲▲Reply to this Disagree 2 Link Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@RebelScum76Constitution from Washington disagreed…4mos4MO

In response to your assertion that allowing Russia to attack Ukraine could lead to instability that effects us, I must point out that the most lethal threat to stability our Republic faces is the unprecedented debt of $34 trillion dollars – your personal share of that is $109,000 – every last American bears the brunt of this debt, and you, as a so-called "libertarian" are proposing that rather than reducing spending at this horrible time, when we're on the brink of the worst depression in world history, that we ship hundreds of billions of dollars MORE to fund the… Read more world's NEVER-ENDING WARS? That's the surest recipe in the world for economic instability!

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@RebelScum76Constitution from Washington commented…4mos4MO

(Sorry if I accidentally called you a libertarian, @9CJ6CB6, I had to cut and paste from a different writing of mine.)

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…4mos4MO

It’s good, personally I’m kinda mid between lib and auth.

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…4mos4MO

Our national debt doesn’t have a deadline to be paid, only a risk if it is not. We have the money to pay it, it’s called the rich population. We can reduce it overtime, but once again, just as you claim I failed to mention other parts of your argument, you failed to mention that we have made a deal to finance it because that was the terms of the past confrontation with Russia. If we are willing to leave people in a country that has not been the aggressor to lack their own civil liberties, than we are simply a “freedom-for-me-but-not-for-thee” kind of country. Peace is… Read more desirable, and as such, I hope that we can push Russia back enough that their government will be willing to negotiate, but, if Russia doesn’t stop attacking, we all die anyway. WW3 is a risk, a risk that we are less likely to have in comparison to the days of the Cold War. We are not sacrificing our own liberties to assist Ukraine, we are sacrificing money, money that will come back to us when Ukraine isn’t drowning in offensive soldiers and corruption. World War 3 isn’t as big of a risk as before, and Putin isn’t willing to cause global winter for a slab of land that used to be his. We can’t do nothing, we can’t go isolationist because if we do, BRICS will fill the void, and as they grow, we weaken. Then, no matter what america will be stuck in an endless war, this time at its own borders. It takes a world saying “That’s enough” to prevent a conflict, because if one weaker voice is all that speaks against Russia, then they will squash it like a bug. Our meager cost of subsidies has crippled Russia more than we could’ve dreamed in our long feud, and we are not the ones fighting. It is for our safety and the rest of the world’s that Russia is held back, and eventually, they will be pushed back enough to be forced to vy for peace.

▲▲Reply to this Disagree 2 Link Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…4mos4MO

I see I need to up your dosage of common sense, so here's a powerful prescription – George Washington's brilliant defence of non-interventionism in his Farewell Address. If symptoms persist after one reading, please consult me, and I can give you a second dosage of medicine, from John Quincy Adams. But first try this medicine:

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes… Read more of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests … The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships, or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will noy lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by our justice shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambitions, rival-ship, interest, humor, or caprice? 'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world … Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing … constantly keeping in view that 'tis folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. … The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations."

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Link Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

Show 1 reply

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this comment.

@9CJ6CB6

Last activeActivity1,505 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias2%Active in

PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

Yet we still hold the largest economy on earth. I’d love to see the irony of this situation if our places were flipped.

13 Replies

About this author

Discussions

Voter guides

Data & analytics

Candidates

About