Turn Our Back On Fellow Human Beings

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (71 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 12 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/15931678.jpg
    In my view, Ultimately the world is turning its backs on the citizens of Ukraine. We have some great reasons.  Has it become easy for America to just reason away the cries for help, the mass graves, the many atrocities we are witnessing daily. We have wide discussions about what is being done and pontificate what is being done and what perhaps could be done to stop the war in Ukraine.

    However, the fact remains people are being killed, men, women, and children. have we become so advanced in our thinking that we can ignore the bottom line? People are dying and the world is sitting back doing very little.

    We certainly can justify this problem, and go about our daily lives. Just makes me think, when did we become so wonderfully oblivious to murder?  Was it 20 years ago. maybe 40 years ago.   I don't like what we have become, I think that sums it up.

    So, what do you think, what's your gut tell you about where we have ended up as a society? A society that can appoint a group such as NATO to make the decisions on who lives who dies?  And who they let into their club?  A society that pretty much can be talked into anything if it offers us an excuse to hide behind,  while people are being dumped into mass graves. 

    Oh well...  Hopefully, some will leave a comment derived from their gut. Don't bother with the were doing this and we're doing that... I am looking for your thoughts on how we ended up at the point we can turn our backs on other human beings being killed in a clearly unjust war. We are doing nothing to stop the daily KILLING!

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      My opinion? Enough is enough. The time has come for the United States and our allies to act.
      We should tell Putin to stop the senseless killing of the Ukrainian people and to pull his forces out of Ukraine immediately. We should make clear that, while we don't want a war, we no longer can stand by and watch him kill innocent civilians. We should deploy the U.S. Air Force  and hopefully those of our allies  (But in reality we don't really need them) over Ukraine to stop the killing and enforce Russia's withdrawal by establishing a no-fly zone. We should explain to Putin that we will not put ground troops into Ukraine, unless Russia attacks our forces, and that our aircraft will not fire on the Russian military while it withdraws and will respond only if attacked. 

      We should also make clear that we will treat Ukraine as a truly neutral state and will provide massive humanitarian support and military equipment solely to allow for Ukraine's own defense.
      It's time we take the driver's seat in this conflict. We've let Putin call the shots, that needs to change now. If being a superpower means anything, it means acting when it matters. Now is just such a time. Enough is enough.



      It should be clear, however, that if Russia continues to massacre civilians, we will enforce the no-fly zone. If Russia's air defense system shoots down one of our aircraft, we will take out its air defense system in Ukraine. If missiles are launched against us or our allies, we will take out those missiles. And any use of unconventional weapons in Ukraine - whether nuclear, chemical or biological - in Ukraine will result in a massive response.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I like your thinking and agree with everything you say.

        The problem is politics.  Too many people have told me the conflict in Ukraine is not worth a single American life.  I like to point out that American civilians and Jounalists have already been killed.

        What do you say to people who will tell you they don't want to start WWIII over Ukraine?  I've heard that one as well.

        A no-fly zone will put American pilots in a direct tactical warfare situation with Russian pilots.  I can guarantee they will attack American pilots.  What then?  It will escalate significantly.

        Do you think the American public would support such an escalation and drawing of the United States into a direct conflict with Russia?

        I support what you say.

        I believe what I have mentioned is some of the push back your ideas will receive.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image60
          CHRIS57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Please allow me to jump into this discussion.

          To understand the issue with the no-fly zone you have to read the USA or NATO military playbook. First act: Take out all surface to air threats. And that will immediately take the war to Russian soil, because that is where the launchpads are. Not a good idea me think.

          Meanwhile, isn´t most of the damage done by indiscrimitory artillery shelling? Apparently Russian forces are fairly good at shielding their artillery from Ukraine attacks.

          Just an idea: Nato has a lot of toys to fight tanks and heavy amour, because that is what Nato uses itself. But Nato has nothing to fight artillery, simply because Nato doesn´t rely on artillery itself.

          Russian industry is too weak to resupply its equipment losses. Russia still has a lot in their stock, but as all stuff unused for years, it is likely not to work very well. So they run out of supplies and tragically out of soldiers. Another month and the war will be over if continued with current intensity.

          Every war has its war crimes. Committed from both sides. But from my observation this is still a war of soldiers, not civilians. There have been no WWII or My Lai atrocities, where complete villages of civilians were slaughtered.

          The real issue is that Russia is running out of options. No more men, no more equipment. Leaves only the nuclear option. And we all don´t want to think of this.

          Meanwhile first 100 refugees have trickled down to our city in G. and kids start to go to school. Russian speaking students help to integrate.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks for posting hey we are on the very same page... You brought up some good questions that should draw conversation.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Thank you, Faye, I just knew you would share your gut feelings, and offer some good solutions. In my view Faye, you possess great common sense.

        I think we agree 100% on this.  And It really restores some faith in what I have been feeling about our human race.

      3. peterstreep profile image80
        peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Problem is that it will escalate the conflict. The whole reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is that he doesn't want Ukraine to be part of Europe or NATO. If NATO helps Ukraine with the military force it will be a huge huge problem.
        The best is to negotiate. Make Ukraine a neutral zone, not being part of Russia and not being part of the west. Like Switzerland in a way.
        As an in-between, this could benefit Ukraine in the long run.
        It will be a tough position with two forces trying to control the country politically, but I don't think there's an alternative.
        Russia doesn't want Ukraine be part of NATO or Europe just as much as the USA won't like Mexico to be ruled by Russia.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I understand where you're coming from.  My opinion ( and These are just my gut reactions) is that It would be wrong both morally and strategically to force Ukrainians to make concessions while Putin is holding a gun to their heads. It would damage U.S. credibility,  hurt U.S.-Ukrainian relations, as well as America’s standing with other allies. Putin is an agressor, a terrorist and I believe you don't negotiate with terrorists. We have no place in forcing  Ukrainians to make sacrifices in hopes of placating Putin.
          History is replete with examples of how failing to push back adequately against Putin’s aggression only encourages more dangerous behavior.
          Putin has repeatedly drawn the conclusion that he can get away with aggression.
          The response should not be to pressure the victim of that aggression to compromise .
          the UN Charter (1945), the Helsinki Final Act (1975) and the Paris Charter (1990)  forbid the use of force to change borders, yet that is exactly what Putin did when he illegally annexed Crimea and then invaded Ukraine’s Donbas region along with his current invasion.  Are we just expecting him to be satisfied at some point?  Just hoping his latest incursion will do the trick?
          It's been stated over and over Pushback and strength are the only things Putin understands and respects.
          But  ultimately I believe we should not sacrifice our principles, and a partner country’s sovereignty, in the vain pursuit of preventing  an escalation in this conflict as we watch war crimes play out before our eyes daily.  You might think me terribly idealistic, unrealistic but this is where my moral compass leads. It's absolutely inhumane what is happening. From where I stand, Putin's desires or wants are irrelevant. It's abhorrent to view human slaughter from the sidelines.   I do understand that others come to different conclusions.

          1. peterstreep profile image80
            peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            It's clear that Putin invaded a sovereign country. There is no excuse for that one. Just like there was no excuse for the US to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. You may not like the government, but that should not be a reason to invade a country with military force.
            But to make an end to this horrible situation is not to fight even more, but to talk and see what everybody wants and to find a peaceful solution.
            In my opinion the US always goes to war with self interests, it does not care about democracy. It only cares about the government in place is a pro-US government. (Remember the dictatorships in South America supported and organized by the US, torture was and is ok for the US government.)
            Another way of looking at it is to see it as a European matter, And the US has no business in the EU. We realized that since Trump Europe can not trust the US and have to take matters into their own hands.
            That sad, it warms me to know how many people in Germany, The Netherlands and other European countries are helping Ukrainian refugees. My cousin is giving a pregnant woman from the Ukraine shelter at the moment.in Amsterdam.
            I do not believe in a military force solution and sending an army to Ukraine.  But at the same time, you can not tolerate this invasion and annexation of an independent country.
            The gas boycott is good, even it is hitting Europe hard and it is the beginning of a crisis. All over Europe, some products are more expensive or not delivered..
            What to do? I do not know, but it is clear that although it looks a simple matter (an invasion of a country) it is pretty complicated and can go all different dirrections.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            So perfectly put...

    2. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I know what you are saying.  You are right.

      I'm sure you also know the arguments you will get.  Things like "We are not the world's police force," "We can't send our young to fight a war that does not involve the United States. 

      Putin's ego has taken a huge hit.  He is like a wounded animal and is very dangerous right now. 

      Military equipment and humanitarian aid is going to Ukraine. 

      Do you think the citizens of the United States would support anything more?

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I want NATO to step in and give them all we have... I am ashamed, and we all know that we could stop Russia quickly. with our superior weapons, and troops.

        Putin will always be dangerous, and more dangerous if he really sees he lost. We need to act before this nut job does. If he uses nukes once in Ukraine he most likely will not stop there. We are gambling with the wrong man.

        At this point, America might be split, but I feel the majority would support going in and ending the killing of innocent people.

    3. Ken Burgess profile image82
      Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      How did you feel about America abandoning Afghanistan, leaving all those millions of people who had believed in America to the Taliban?

      How did you feel about our tearing apart Libya to kill Gaddafi so Clinton could stoke her ego and American and French interests could take control of oil production... leaving that nation broken and in the hands of small time religious sects no better than slavery gangs?

      How do you feel about Iraq and how we left that nation after millions of dead and wounded?

      How do you feel about China’s government incarcerating millions of Uyghurs in “re-education camps.” Between 2017 and 2019 the Chinese government transferred around 80,000 Uyghurs from Xinjiang to factories across China, where they underwent forced labor in the service of  83 major international brands to help supply technology, clothing, automobiles, etc.. Manufacturers using Uyghur workers include: Apple, Nike, Adidas, Amazon, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Zara, H&M, Gap, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Victoria’s Secret, Volkswagen, Jaguar,Mercedes-Benz, and BMW, among  others.

      Women Uyghur are sold to brothels across Asia, they are imprisoned and raped, China also harvests thousands of human organs from its Uighur Muslim minority every year.

      You wouldn't know any more about what is going on in Ukraine than you do China if our MSM media wasn't BOMBARDING you with propaganda about it daily.

      The bottom line... Russia has 4,500 nukes.

      When we go solve the rest of the world's problems, when we have stopped destroying nations OURSELVES for the filthy rich that control our government, when we go shut down ALL the nations who participate in slavery and the mass murder of minorities... then we can have a discussion about being tough against the nation with the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.

    4. profile image78
      KC McGeeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Approximetly 20,000 U.S. citizens live in Ukraine. What has the U.S. leadership done to get them out or at least protect them? And why hasn't the Department of State and Biden said anything regarding this? U.S. News media don't mention it, Why?

      U.S. Citizens living in Ukraine have families living there too. All I hear about it from U.S. leadership on this matter is silence.

      It is a very sad situation in Ukraine,and I pray they rise from the ashes.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        "Approximetly 20,000 U.S. citizens live in Ukraine. What has the U.S. leadership done to get them out or at least protect them? "

        Biden did put out a statement  Feb 11, 2022 ---
        "What I've asked is, American citizens should leave — should leave now."
        Also --- "The U.S. State Department issued a "Level 4: Do Not Travel" advisory for Ukraine on Thursday, saying U.S. citizens in Ukraine "should depart now via commercial or private means," in large part because of the high threat of Russian military action (the advisory also mentions Ukraine's "very high level" of COVID-19 cases)."
        https://www.npr.org/2022/02/11/10800605 … ve-ukraine

    5. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      The question remains what to do?

      We walk a tightrope on fear of escalation to the point of no return. Human beings have been are are being killed all over the planet, daily. But if the nuclear genie gets out of the bottle, all life will be extinguished everywhere.

      Biden was wise to dismiss the idea of placing a no fly zone over the Ukraine, as that would make us a combatant and who is to say that that would not be the final provocative act?

      1. Ken Burgess profile image82
        Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I think this has been an excellent study on how propaganda effects the majority of people.

        Look at the opinions of those who want to intercede, despite the high risk of nuclear war, because they have been watching the propaganda about the atrocities Russia is committing.

        Would they even know what was going on if our MSM wasn't spoon feeding them tragic stories hour after hour?

        Worst things are being done to an entire population of people, by the millions, slowly, deliberately, in the most inhumane ways... but our MSM muzzles those stories and the people never really know about it.

        Why?

        Because Apple and Nike and so many other big name brands are benefiting from the slave labor being used and the genocide ongoing against the Uyghurs.

        Why are we fighting Russia over Crimea and the Donbas territories?

        I would hypothesize it has a lot to do with the petroleum reserves found in those regions and that Shell and other big name energy companies wanted to develop them, and wanted to cut Russia out of the loop from supplying Europe's Natural Gas needs.

        We ignore millions suffering fates worse than slavery because it benefits our corporations.

        And we instigate a war (be it Iraq or Libya or Ukraine) because it benefits our corporations.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I asked not for your common sense feelings. But your gut feelings about watching  Putin kill innocent people?

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Putin is just one of many, killing innocent people is the tragedy of human existence, no matter who does it and where it occurs.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            So well put. Thank you for sharing

          2. Ken Burgess profile image82
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Something I have begun to consider...

            Lets say our government's leadership realized the problem they had on their hands with Putin.  Lets say that Obama in particular (and Biden as his VP would be in on this intel and would his SoS Clinton) recognized the threat.

            How do you neutralize that threat, how do you contain it, keep it from reaching its maximum potential?

            Without of course directly confronting Putin/Russia and risking a nuclear war.

            I would say the last decade of what has transpired in Ukraine would be one of the better options.

            Support the overthrow of the pro-Russian government, pour billions into the nation shoring up people's distrust of Russia, inject pro-western leadership that is under your influence, make the populace want to join the west by exposing them to the best things it has to offer.

            Knowing all the time that it is highly improbable, if not impossible, that Putin will accept this. 

            Keep sanctions on Russia, crippling its economic development and ability to rebuild its army, never accept the legitimacy of Crimea's secession.

            Continue to keep the door open for Ukraine to join NATO, while at the same time never allowing it to join NATO... or the EU... but the threat of it agitates Putin.

            Continue to have Ukranian leadership push for the return of Crimea, keep pushing the narrative that Russia occupied it and took it by force.

            This manipulates Putin into acting.  Those actions allow you to cut off Russia's economy totally, from the rest of the world.

            Russia's army gets bogged down in Ukraine, spending itself.

            Soon Putin will be gone.  With Russia's economy crippled and its military spent on Ukraine and the war in Ukraine becoming more and more unpopular in Russia each day that passes by... something has to give.

            That something most likely will be Putin.

            So long as we stick to this... we may see Putin removed from power without the threat of nuclear escalation.

            This is a stretch, this is giving our leadership a lot of credit, the ability to plan, project out years down the road, not something I am sure they deserve credit for.

            But its possible.

            They needed to cripple Russia's economic growth and contain it so long as Putin had control, they have effectively done that for 8 years now, thanks to Ukraine.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Ken, I have had to do some further thinking on all this. I am coming down toward a more "hawkish" line toward Putin. He is playing us like a fiddle.

              He said that he was "surrounded" by NATO, when in fact only 6 percent of the Russian boundary borders a nation that is a NATO member.

              When he attacked the Ukraine and Georgia earlier, the excuse was protection of ethnic Russians being abused within selected regions of those countries.There is Hitler's classic Sudetenland excuse for invasion.

              It has been 30 years since the dissolution of the Soviet Empire and while Putin dreams of its reinstatement, he has been careful not to "cross the line" with the West. And he knows that there has never been a real threat of invasion of Russia by NATO in all that time, so what has changed?

              He is manufacturing this crisis, as the only aggressive moves in the region have been taken by him.

              I believe that he has specific goals for the Ukraine and is using the threat and fears of escalation to intimidate the West to acceding to his objectives.

              This man is manipulative, not suicidal, but want Ukraine territorial concessions. Will he blow the world up to get them? I doubt it. Even Putin knows that he cannot survive from an economic standpoint if the whole world is poised against him. So what will he have accomplished in the long term?

              The current approach of world wide sanctions and arming the Ukrainians to the greatest extent possible without NATO giving Putin an excuse to escalate as a result of NATO direct involvement is the most prudent. Use of tactical nukes by Putin is a form of escalation.

              That is how you neutralize and contain the threat.

              The self-determination of nations is a tenet of NATO, Putin's demands that these nations be prevented from a course that is their choice, is a non-starter. This is not a concession we can afford to make.

              Ken, soon he will be gone is not soon enough. The reality is that 70 years old is not so old these days, we could well be dealing with him for over a decade or more, an eternity in the geopolitical world. I wonder if the wherewithal in Russia exists to remove a dictator like Putin from power?

              1. Ken Burgess profile image82
                Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I think you and I are seeing this in very similar terms, I think our leadership may see it similar as well.

                The sanctions (cutting Russia almost completely off from the rest of the world) needs time to take effect, as well, the longer this drags on in Ukraine the more likely the people in Russia will turn against this invasion.

                There has to be a fine line walked here, because being wrong means nuclear devastation, this has to remain the #1 issue in all of this.

                It doesn't matter if he is using Hitler's tactics, if he is playing the West like a fiddle, it doesn't matter how many war crimes are committed, what matters is that it doesn't escalate and destroy civilization, if not all humanity.

                This is why playing hardball with Russia in regards to Crimea may have been the prelude to being able to shut Putin down, and eventually lead to his ousting.  Or it may have just been hubris, which helped facilitate the invasion.

                It doesn't really matter now, what matters is ending the conflict and the threat of it escalating.

    6. peterstreep profile image80
      peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      The US is after WW2 constantly killing people abroad. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, just to name the most infamous ones.
      In my opinion, many US presidents should be tried in the International Court in The Hague.
      Many people in Europe are now sheltering people from Ukraine. There is a lot of humanitarian work going on right now. So I think that's a really promising sign that there are a lot of good humans in the world.

  2. Stephen Tomkinson profile image92
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 12 months ago

    To my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that this is an unjust war with a clear aggressor. The West should do all it can to support Ukraine.
    But, hovering at the back of my mind is a feeling of uneasiness that there are so many other victims of aggression that we forget about.
    Why is this? Is the life of a Yemeni child somehow worth less than that of a Ukrainian?
    Surely not.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Wonderful point. And yes, we need to say the buck stops here!  These kinds of atrocities should not, and never should have been allowed.  Do we say it stops here or do we put Ukraine on the list that we did nothing to end these kinds of atrocities?  Do we just blindly walk the same path?

      1. Ken Burgess profile image82
        Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Where was your voice against our interference in Iraq?

        When we dropped bombs and fired artillery and killed tens of thousands of civilians in war?

        What made our actions right and just and Putin's evil?

        Propaganda?

        Our country right or wrong?

        How about we hold Zelenskyy responsible and DEMAND he compromise, that he give Russia something in return for ending this war?

        Zelenskyy whose rhetoric leading up to Russia's invasion helped ensure that invasion occur.

        Ukraine’s leader vows to do all he can to bring back Crimea
        https://apnews.com/article/europe-ukrai … 10882bf952
        August 2021 -" Ukraine’s president on Monday vowed to do all he can to bring back the peninsula of Crimea, annexed by Russia seven years ago, and urged international allies to support the effort."

        ‘Crimea is Ukraine': Zelenskyy opens inaugural Crimea summit
        https://vnexplorer.net/crimea-is-ukrain … 19162.html
        August 2021 - Ukraine convened the international summit to build up pressure on Russia over the annexation of Crimea.

        In addition, Ukraine cut off Crimea's primary water source.

        For those of us who have done their research on the history of Crimea, it was never a part of Ukraine in the past, it was always based heavily with Russian troops and Navy vessels and the absurdity of demanding it back almost begs for the response they have gotten in return from Putin.

        Was war avoidable?

        We will never know because Zelenskyy and "the West" went looking for it.

        Well now they have it, and it damned sure isn't worth risking one nuclear weapon being launched over.

        Russia is losing this war, Russia will not be able to sustain the offensive.

        Interceding now would be the epitome of stupidity, the end result of this war can already be seen... Russia will not take Ukraine.

        There is no "No fly zone" without attacking Russia in Russia... and that instigates Nuclear War.

        There is no boots on the ground to fight Russian troops without instigating Nuclear War.

        And we cannot win a Nuclear War

        If you are upset about all those innocent people being killed, be upset with Zelenskyy for being such an arrogant prick he spat in Putin's face and demanded Crimea back.

        Be pissed off about NATO saying the door will stay open for Ukraine, when Putin spent 10 years telling the leaders of the West his concerns and why he didn't want to see NATO there.

        No one ever negotiated in good faith with Russia, not Ukraine, not America, no one.  They told Putin to give up Crimea, and accept what they demanded he accept, they told him to go screw himself.

        Putin said what would happen if they did not listen... and he has kept his word.  Why on earth would you think he won't use nukes in retaliation if Russia is attacked when he has promised to do just that?

        1. Nathanville profile image92
          Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Why are you so protective of Russia (Pro Russian) when Russia is and always has been such an aggressive nation; since the end of the cold war in 1992 Russia has been involved in 33 conflicts around the world, including their invasion of Georgia in 2008; and my memories of the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 is still fresh in my mind e.g. my brother had tuned into a Czechoslovakia radio station broadcasting in English at the very moment the Russian tanks were rolling into the capital, and we carried on listening to the DJ until the Russian soldiers broke through the studio door…. Then…. Silence…….

          Having experience all my life the constant threats on Britain by Russia, ever since the Russian invasion of the Crimea it seemed obvious to me that given a chance Russia would not hesitate in invading Ukraine; it was only a matter of time.  The only thing that would have stopped Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is if Ukraine was a member of NATO or the EU.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image82
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I'm not protective of Russia.

            I'm a realist, I recognize facts, and I put myself in the other persons shoes when I want to comprehend and gain an encompassing perspective.

        2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "For those of us who have done their research on the history of Crimea, it was never a part of Ukraine in the past"

          Ever since the invasion of 2014, Kremlin propaganda has promoted the myth of Crimea as “historically Russian land.” In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
          The Russian Empire does not actually feature in the approximately three millennia of recorded Crimean history until relatively recently, appearing towards the end of the eighteenth century. For thousands of years prior to Russia’s arrival on the scene, Crimea was home to a wide array of peoples and nations including the Greeks, Scythians, Romans, Goths, Byzantines, and many others. Far from being ancestral Russian land, the peninsula has traditionally been an international crossroads of cultures and civilizations.
          The official transfer of Crimea to Ukraine by the Soviet authorities in 1954 was entirely in keeping with the deep historical, economic, and logistical ties that had connected the peninsula to the Ukrainian mainland for centuries.  But the entire history of the Crimean Tartars has been completely ignored. Maybe the land area needs to be returned to an autonomous region. Although Russia through history has done much to obliterate these people, their numbers have grown since the collapse of the Soviet Union and they were allowed to return to Crimea. 
          In the end, less than 6 per cent of Crimea’s written history (from the 9th century BC to date) belongs to the Russian chapter.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image82
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            So you are saying Crimea has no real ties to Ukraine then, correct?

            It was however, for hundreds of years part of Russia, then the USSR, so it continued under the control of Moscow/Russia even after it was "transferred" to Ukraine.

            The first waves of Russian settlers onto what is now Ukrainian territory came in the late-16th century.  America was colonized and created in that timeframe. I don't believe we plan on giving the continent back over to the remaining Native Americans anytime soon.

            Crimea's people speak Russian, but almost none of them speak Ukrainian, they do speak a Crimean Tatar language as well though.

            Crimea literally has nothing in common with Western Ukraine and its secession to Russia should have been accepted long ago.

            Crimea had an election to secede from Ukraine... this was during the time that the Ukraine insurrection overthrew its elected government, outside influencers installed a temporary pro-western government to control Ukraine, during that time of an un-lawful controlling government, Crimea lawfully held an election choosing to return to Russian control.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Crimean Tartars Have more ties to Ukraine than Russia. The only reason today's occupants of Crimea may have more affinity toward Russia is because Putin moved them into that area. A quarter of a million over the last 10 years. Also, in the sham of a referendum in 2014.
              Crimean authorities then proposed a referendum, which was held on March 16. It proved an illegitimate sham. To begin with, the referendum was illegal under Ukrainian law. Moreover, it offered voters two choices: to join Russia, or to restore Crimea’s 1992 constitution, which would have entailed significantly greater autonomy from Kyiv. Those on the peninsula who favored Crimea remaining a part of Ukraine under the current constitutional arrangements found no box to check.
              The referendum unsurprisingly produced a Soviet-style result: 97 percent allegedly voted to join Russia with a turnout of 83 percent. A true referendum, fairly conducted, might have shown a significant number of Crimean voters in favor of joining Russia. Some 60 percent were ethnic Russians, and many might have concluded their economic situation would be better as a part Russia.

              It was not, however, a fair referendum. It was conducted in polling places under armed guard, with no credible international observers, and with Russian journalists reporting that they had been allowed to vote. Two months later, a member of Putin’s Human Rights Council let slip that turnout had been more like 30 percent, with only half voting to join Russia.
              Russia and Putin has no legitimate historical claim to Crimea.  Putin's moves have been purely statategoc in terms of Crimea.

              https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … esolution/

              1. Ken Burgess profile image82
                Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                What that is in summary:

                "We in the West don't like what Crimea/Russia did or how they did it. So we are going to punish Russia with sanctions... while at the same time we like that there was an insurrection against the lawfully elected Ukrainian government... and we were happy to put a pro-western puppet regime in control in its place."

                "We demand Russia play by the rules we create for it, while at the same time we ignore the very rules we impose on others."

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  It wasn't an issue of "like" . The U.S.  and most European governments agreed that the referendum violated both the Ukrainian constitution and international law. The Ukrainian constitution requires that any changes to the territory of Ukraine be approved by a referendum of all of the Ukrainian people. The requirement is consistent with general principles of international law, which respects the territorial integrity of states and does not recognize a right of secession by a group or region in a country unless the group or region has been denied a right to "internal self determination" (i.e., its right to pursue its own political, economic, social, and cultural development) by the central government or has been subject to grave human rights violations by the central government. These factors, which could give rise to a right of remedial secession under international law, were not present in Crimea.
                  And what puppet regime are you talking about?

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image82
                    Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/2/2 … government

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu … story.html

                    Prior to there being an elected government, there were  interim leaders’ after the insurrection.

                    But the Western-leaning leaders who assumed power in February with the toppling of President Victor Yanukovych are facing a bureaucratic challenge that may be equally urgent: organizing a nationwide election within 10 days, at a time when the government is unable to assert full control over more than half a dozen cities in eastern Ukraine. Rebels, citing the results of a hasty referendum, have proclaimed the birth of two republics.

                    Crimea seceded before there was a legitimate government in Ukraine. 

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crim … referendum

                    You can take a position that this is a black & white issue, but it is not, Ukraine was not a unified nation, it did not have a legitimate government, it was unstable and Crimea chose to secede rather than remaining as part of Ukraine, which historically, it never had been a part of.

                    There is no mystery in this, almost 60% of the populace were ethnic Russians.

                    The United Nations Development Program conducted a series of polls in Crimea between 2009 and 2011 about the question of leaving Ukraine and joining Russia, the results were consistently between 65 - 70% for it.

                    Now consider the disarray that was going on in Ukraine at that time, the difference between East and West parts of the nation, the "separatist" movements elsewhere, etc. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of Crimea's populace at that time thought joining with Russia was a far better option.

                2. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  "there was an insurrection against the lawfully elected Ukrainian government"

                  This is evidence you have not spoken with Ukrainians about this.  Do you know the Russians were even more crocked than the 2020 Democrats in terms of an election.  The Ukrainian president removed from office...didn't eve speak Ukrainian.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image82
                    Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    But they didn't get rid of that government by having an election, they had an insurrection.

                    The interesting thing is Ukraine had been going back and forth for more than a decade between pro-Russian and pro-West factions, I have researched it enough to know that both sides had some dirty politics going on.

                    After the insurrection outside forces put in very pro-western leaders to run things for the interim and I believe to also ensure only pro-western politicians came in after the fact.  For instance:

                    Mikheil Saakashvili who ran Odessa 'province' was a Georgian, he was the third President of Georgia for two consecutive terms from 25 January 2004 to 17 November 2013.

                    From May 2015 until November 2016, Saakashvili was the Governor of Ukraine's Odessa Oblast. He is the founder and former chairman of the United National Movement party. Saakashvili heads the Executive Committee of Ukraine's National Reform Council since 7 May 2020.

                    This is what I mean by 'puppets' being put in control of Ukraine right after the insurrection.  Not everyone in Ukraine wanted to move in that direction, in fact the country was split 50/50 between West and East as if Ukraine was two separate nations, and they partly were, if you dig into Ukraine history you will see that.

            2. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Two points

              1. Crimea always has been referred to as the "Autonomous Zone" in Ukraine.  Their independence of Ukraine was never an issue.

              Crimea and Ukraine benefited from being part of one another. 

              2. The election held by the Russians was even more fraudulent than the 2020 election here in the United States.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image82
                Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Fraudulent or not, it was an election, not an insurrection, not an occupation.

                Those trying to sell Crimea secession as some type of invasion by Russia are pushing a false narrative that has a lot to do with where we are today.

                Sanctions, threats, and Zelenskyy running around demanding help from the world to get Crimea back did nothing to end the hostilities it only racheted them up.

                Fact 60% of the people living in Crimea at the time were ethnic Russians.

                The United Nations Development Program conducted a series of polls in Crimea between 2009 and 2011 about the question of leaving Ukraine and joining Russia, every poll showed a similar result, between 65-70% wanted to join Russia.

                Considering the insurrection, the chaos, at the time they had that referendum vote I have no doubt that the outcome to join Russia was legitimate and well over 70% regardless of how 'fraudulent' the actual count was.

        3. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Ken, you always hit the nail on the common sense head...  But what are your gut feelings about watching  Putin kill innocent people? Can you share those feelings?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image76
            Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Good ? for Ken.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image82
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I spent a few years overseas, while in the Army, war is war.

            You are seeing stories and being told things because that is what our MSM wants you to see.

            1994
            1 million people massacred in 100 days.
            https://historyofyesterday.com/rwandan- … fdc4d1d4b9

            1992- to Today
            Over 1 million civilians killed in a "conflict" I doubt you know we are in
            https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ … r-strikes/

            https://www.army.mil/article/112963/10t … ears_later

            I have been to enough "war torn" places to know our MSM is telling the American people what they want them to think and believe.

            So it doesn't effect me, I know things far worse than what is occurring in Ukraine are happening right now, in other parts of the world and you will never be told about it.  But you are being shown every dead infant, told about every school hit by a missile, and will hear non-stop tragic story after tragic story because they want you to feel and believe just what you feel and believe right now, about Russia.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Fair answers.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I fully understand you have seen war first hand, as has my husband. He shares your sentiments about the media hype, and yes he said his own memories far surpass what we are seeing on the nightly news.

        4. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "We will never know because Zelenskyy and "the West" went looking for it."

          Absolute nonsense.  Nobody threatened anybody with their military other than Russa.  Fact.

          Russia is difficult to negotiate with by Ukraine.  The world tends to forget that Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation.  It acts within the best interests of its people.  Russia has proven to be nothing other than in international thug. 

          It is coming close to the time when the Russian military must be defeated for the betterment of mankind.

  3. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 12 months ago

    Thank you for commenting. I knew you would be kind enough to share, and truely give your honest opinion.   I certainly can't argue your common sense approach.  And all the atrocities you gave as samples, I was very much ashamed of and did not support.

    The nuke part, I have said I think he will use them if he finds he needs to.  So, not sure that NATO"s approach will work. I pray it does. Do you think he will walk away from this war a loser in the end? I just keep thinking about that question.

  4. Nathanville profile image92
    Nathanvilleposted 12 months ago

    My ‘two-penny’s worth’ to your valid statement “when did we become so wonderfully oblivious to murder?  Was it 20 years ago. maybe 40 years ago.”

    It’s always been a problem for as long as civilisations have existed.  It is impossible to police the whole world, but the UN and International Humanitarian Laws is start, but for numerous reasons there is only so much that can be done, and lots of limitations.

    I think in that “two wrongs don’t make a right”, we shouldn’t justify not taking action to prevent humanitarian crimes in one country where we could take action (such as in Ukraine), just because (for whatever reason) we turn a blind eye to other atrocities around the world.

    Taking a leaf out of my civil service training “Each case should be looked at on its own merits”, or in this case we shouldn’t use inaction against atrocities carried out by China as an excuse for not taking action to support Ukraine; we should treat them as two separate issues.

    NATO did eventually get involved in the Bosnian war in 1992, in defence of Bosnia, even though Bosnia is not a NATO country; so NATO’s involvement in such situations is possible; excepting the West is running scared of Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons against NATO countries, including the USA.

    But the last time that I am aware of, where one nation on principle was willing to risk all in support of another nation, was Britain’s clear warning to Hitler that if Germany invaded Poland then Britain would declare war on Germany – and it’s a promise Britain stuck too without hesitation, even though that it meant that most cities across Britain would be flattened by bombing raids from Germany – in the end over 2 million British homes were destroyed by Hitler’s bombs (over 10% of Housing).  And in late 1941 (over two years later) Britain was on the verge of losing the war when the American’s finally decided to come to our aid.  The slowness in support of America is something that hasn’t been forgotten by the Brits.  So I’m sure that if NATO does eventually come to the rescue of Ukraine, the fact that they took their time will not be forgotten by the Ukrainian people.

    That’s my personal thoughts, which I think you asked for!

    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
      Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Probably nobody wants my thoughts on this post because I think all wars are unjust. And nobody cares that the State and Banks are caused every major wars for the last 100 years. By me not contributing to centro bank and state centralist  they loose their powers of destruction at least by that one person. If one wants a protest of peace I'm all over it.

      https://www.azquotes.com/author/8717-Jo … g/violence

      Give Peace a Chance. Violence will not stop violence. killing can not stop killing. One has the last resort human right to protect with equal force themselves and family.

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Your first and last sentence is a little contradictory e.g. you start off by saying “I think all wars are unjust” then finish off by saying “One has the last resort human right to protect with equal force themselves and family.” ergo war!

        So are you telling me that you are happy to stand by and allow a bully beat-up your best friend while you do nothing to help your friend because you don’t believe in violence?

        I don’t believe in violence, but I don’t believe in standing by and letting bullies enact their violence on others and just turn a blind-eye to it.

        Also, banks have nothing to do with it, that’s just one of your ‘conspiracy theories’ e.g. neither Hitler nor Putin invade other nations because of the banks; both are despots.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "I don’t believe in violence, but I don’t believe in standing by and letting bullies enact their violence on others and just turn a blind-eye to it."

          Now, this is sharing your feelings... Thank you

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      So, these are your gut feelings? you are very logical. It seems you have shared you feel our options are limited. Would it not be possible for the biggest most well equipt fighter to overcome a rag-tag mess of an army?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image76
        Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        From visiting 6 war zones and been in a dozen riots as partime special security force due to Martial artist skills. Had a few fights and was shot at a few times. Meanwhile saved a few lives and nobody on both sides were not seriously harmed.  The arts of not fighting or using equal force for defence is the best solution.  The gun shooting was the art of hiding and ducking like a bullet proof monk, won't do that again. Being fearless, yet not stupid is the name of the game. No contradiction, to self defense to anything within my own circle. Outside of that, I have too much on my plate to have so much empathy for the whole world. Time and time again the firey dragon can not defeat the snake in the grass., that being Ukrainian. Ukrainian are not so innocent, they have killed more than double the Russians compared to the US troops were killed in Iraq, fighting 220 times longer fighting.  I can only imagine talking to Aliens better than human about numbers when it come to war and violence.

        Did see a few shots on propaganda news that were taken from other riots or other wars.  The Rothschilds supplied both sides of the world war 1 and 2. Same like people are at it again.  And Winston Churchill created and that grew in a place for 80% Zionists  population in Israel. Thank goodness for British Beatles to balance things out with so many love songs.

      2. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Well yeah, I was a sponge as a kid (absorbing knowledge), and yes my inner feelings are all too often intertwined with rational thought – I tend to think from the head, and not the heart.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image76
          Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          The world need more kindness than it needs more religion or politics.

          The heart knows what it wants in life. So lead with the heart shortly followed by the mind. All our problems comes from our minds. Go to the mind to find out problems.

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Well, yeah, for a lot of people that may well be so. 

            But as long as the head and heart are not divorced from each other:-

            My decision to be a vegetarian is largely based largely on reasoning rather than just feelings.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image76
              Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              What about the different between justice and Law?

              Hitler was certainly legal.

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I don’t see the connection?

                I don’t need my heart to tell me when laws are unjust; I can reason that out in my head quite well – as long as the two are connected, as they are.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image76
                  Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  My heart has not ever done me wrong with adjustments. Where leading with my head has gotten me into troubles plenty of times.  The heart is far more connected to the subconsciousness and more powerful and wiser than the conscious mind.

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Well that’s the difference between the two of us. 

                    Yep, when helping someone trying to make a decision I always ask them what their ‘gut feeling is’ e.g. what their heart is telling them, but we then use that as a guide to make an ‘informed’ decision, using our minds to reason it out. 

                    And that’s how I make decisions (informed decisions, rationally); that way I’m less prone to make ‘rash’ decisions.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            So very well put...

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Thank you for sharing... I think most of us have a good mix of head and heart. Today we have evolved into a society that head is way ahead of heart. In the case of the Ukraine war, I think we are more apt to be comfortable conversing about  --- what should be done as common sense dictates to prevent a World war, and not what. perhaps should be done to stop the killing of innocent people. I guess any one of us may feel differently if we were in the middle of a war zone, and the world turned its back. I mean, we have witnessed this before, actually as Ken points out, many times. The human race seems to have become very adaptive to turning away.

    3. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Arthur, I wanted to touch on this part of your comment, if I may?


      "But the last time that I am aware of, where one nation on principle was willing to risk all in support of another nation, was Britain’s clear warning to Hitler that if Germany invaded Poland then Britain would declare war on Germany – and it’s a promise Britain stuck too without hesitation, even though that it meant that most cities across Britain would be flattened by bombing raids from Germany – in the end over 2 million British homes were destroyed by Hitler’s bombs (over 10% of Housing).  And in late 1941 (over two years later) Britain was on the verge of losing the war when the American’s finally decided to come to our aid.  The slowness in support of America is something that hasn’t been forgotten by the Brits.  So I’m sure that if NATO does eventually come to the rescue of Ukraine, the fact that they took their time will not be forgotten by the Ukrainian people."
      ----------
      History records Great Britain and France declaring war on Hitler on September 3, 1939. It was an courageous act exposing you to great danger on your desire to stand on principle and recognition that Hitler's territorial ambitions could never really be satisfied.

      The difference now is such courage and commitment to go "full Monty" would not only be of risk to the combatants, but would probably kill the Inuits in North Canada and the people on atolls in the middle of the Pacific. I will take my own risks but not risk others that are completely removed from the conflict. That is what nuclear exchange will entail, a situation that did not exist in 1939. That is why we have to be careful in my opinion. I think of the HG Wells Novel "The Time Machine", will it be eons of time after a nuclear exchange when or if humanity will once again be able to stand and have the sun shine on its faces? Total annihilation is a theme that goes beyond politics. We may end up at "ground Zero", but short of actual attack against ourselves, we should avoid it. Putin is a madman, and as Esoteric mentioned earlier, he is both immoral and amoral and cannot be expected to react in a reasonable way, but instead like a trapped and wounded animal.

      Taking a stand for America, this nation has had a strong isolationist streak during the 1920s and 30s. Wilson goes to Versailles to negotiate terms to Germany and the Axis Powers in 1919. He returns to America and is seen as an idealist as he could not get American membership to the League of Nations through congress. He was in earnest about it, and his angst may well have precipitated the stroke he later suffered. The theme of the successive President, Warren Harding, was a "Return to Normalcy". All Gods Dead and all Wars Fought.

      By the thirties, I believe that FDR understood the big picture by the end of the decade that Hitler was in fact a global threat and why it was after Pearl Harbor he directed the lion's share of military effort to the European theat, with Japan and the Pacific in secondary place. The American people had to be coddled along to see the vision as FDR clearly saw it, a menacing world threat. We were in the midst of a Depression, our military was woefully inadequate and we had a whole ocean between us and the problems in Europe, so why ask for trouble? Yet, FDR, being the fine tuned politician that he was, found a compromise short of direct involvement.

      Lend Lease and similar programs allowed Roosevelt to find a way to assist with materiel assets, yet not be shot down for dragging us into another war as there were more than just a few isolationist non interventionist voices still out there. Being a leader with foresight, he knew that a storm was coming, and did not want to wait until we were dragged in unprepared. But, he was confined within the political reality of the time.

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, I do appreciate the American perspective; it’s just that from the European view America is a mighty country that could come to its aid in times of need, but is often reluctant to.   Excuses don’t cut any ice when your life is in danger and your close friend (USA) just stands by and watches.

        It’s an analogy to America standing by and doing nothing while a big bully thrashes America’s close friends and ally.

        I do appreciate that now we have the nuclear threat, and most likely Putin may well win the war in Ukraine simply because the West and the USA are too fearful to help because Putin may well be mad enough to unleash nuclear warheads on the world if we get in his way. 

        The tragedy being that if Putin reclaims Ukraine the world becomes a far more dangerous place, as Putin will have become emboldened in the belief that he can get what he wants just by threatening nuclear war; and the whole world cowards down to him – A megalomania that no one is willing to stand up to.

        And no, I don’t know what the answer is!

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Arthur, America is not as mighty as everyone would like to think.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor … -humanity/

          This is an interesting article but it seems that much of it has been excised.

          We have got around 65 defense pacts around the world, with military and defense spending at no. 1 and at many times that of the no. 2 on the list. It is the reason while their never seems to be enough butter in this culture because guns have always received priority.

          We have many close friends and allies that we agree to support, I simply think that we are spread too thin to come to the aid of everyone.

          We got involved in the since post WWII providing protection for Korean penusula in the event of an attack on South Korea by North Korea. Then there was Vietnam to prevent a Communist takeover there.

          We send billions to defend Israel against Iran and those that choose to threaten her.

          We have gunboats in China's backyard to protect Taiwan, against mainland China.

          There is OAS, SEATO, NATO, you name it.

          We spent much of the 20th century in an attempt to contain the Soviet Union and its satellites. We have spent much of the 21st century chasing after allusive terrorists, post 9-11, at tremendous cost.  We had the lead in the Balkans in the nighties, the Gulf War, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

          What other nation in the world has had its nose in the affairs of others to this extent? Who has as many defense pacts?

          Ukraine is just one of many nations on earth that have had to face this at one time or another.

          I think that it is unfair for the North and West of the globe to not consider the fate of the non aligned nations of the world who have no stake in our squabbles, but will face annihilation, regardless.

          I have to be concerned as an earlier poster mentioned, do we have the same attitudes regarding atrocities that occur in other parts of the world, outside Europe?

          This "superpower" stuff is overrated. China seems to have the better model for world hegemony in this century. We are walking around with a big stick made of Kleenex, because in reality China and Russia are more then capable of bringing the planet to an end, despite our bravado.

          Yes, we have to stand up in regard to Putin and the Ukraine, as the only real deterrent right now is Putin destroying himself along with the rest of the planet and I am willing to gamble that his ego and style would probably preclude that approach. Attacking a NATO member would cross that line in the sand. Let's hope that he does not go there.

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, I can understand your stance as an American “it’s not our fight, so why should we get involved”.  And that’s why increasingly I feel that perhaps Europe would be better off with the proposed ‘European Army’, so that we are less reliant on America, and free to sort our own affairs out!

            With regards your comment “….do we have the same attitudes regarding atrocities that occur in other parts of the world, outside Europe?”  My view is that “two wrongs don’t make a right” e.g. just because we turned a blind-eye to some atrocities in the past doesn’t mean that we should do now; and “each case should be considered on its merits” e.g. we should consider all the factors including morality, and weight up all the odds including the threat of nuclear war.

            But generally America and its allies have actually taken the high moral ground in other parts of the world outside of Europe e.g. we’ve removed despots like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, and we attempted to quash the  Taliban in Afghanistan, and NATO intervened militarily to protect Bosnia (a non NATO country) during the Bosnian war.  Our interventions are never easy, and not always successful, but at least we try.

  5. emge profile image80
    emgeposted 12 months ago

    All I ask is were the same thoughts echoed when Iraq was attacked and bombed for 70 days before the invasion and Kosovo was attacked and bombed for 80 days before the invasion. What about thousands killed in Afghanistan including children and what about the guinea pig experiment on Japan atomic bombing with 200,000 killed. Read the dissenting judgment of the Tokyo tribunal by Justice Vinod pal

    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
      Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I asked the same questions throughout the time and during destruction of the middle East.

      Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not a true Democratic when most disagree with war. it only benefits the wealthy.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)