• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is the US interest in Ukraine?

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It's a fact of life, red lines are drawn and this is what happens when they are crossed. Ukraine joining Nato means that missiles can and will be brought right up to the Russian border aimed at Moscow. No Russian leader would tolerate that and neither would an American leader tolerate missiles in Cuba or Mexico aimed at the US. It's the way things work on this planet.

Rape and murder happen as well. Is that just a "fact of life" that we should ethically dismiss? That is horrifying.

Missiles would not need to be brought "right up to the border" unless Russia was continuing to threaten Ukraine. Stop invading and threatening and respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty, and hey, look at that, no missiles are needed.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Rape and murder happen as well. Is that just a "fact of life" that we should ethically dismiss? That is horrifying.

Missiles would not need to be brought "right up to the border" unless Russia was continuing to threaten Ukraine. Stop invading and threatening and respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty, and hey, look at that, no missiles are needed.
Joining Nato means missiles will be brought in, that is what Nato is for, Nato serves no other purpose. If Russia brought missiles to Cuba or Mexico how do you think the US would respond?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Joining Nato means missiles will be brought in, that is what Nato is for, Nato serves no other purpose. If Russia brought missiles to Cuba or Mexico how do you think the US would respond?

Just a nitpick. NATO was formed before these kinds of missiles existed, so you are claimed NATO was formed based on the assumption that these missiles would be possible and used. Do you got any evidence for that?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Okay. And so...?
That's not the point of the thread (a war in Ethiopia) but my point is comparing our response to that war vs our response to a war in Ukraine. Guess the folks in Ethiopia are too brown and too poor for us to stress much about what's going on there (speaking of rape and murder - by machete and knives in fact - Lord have mercy).
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
That's not the point of the thread (a war in Ethiopia) but my point is comparing our response to that war vs our response to a war in Ukraine. Guess the folks in Ethiopia are too brown and too poor for us to stress much about what's going on there.

It's got nothing to do with their skin color or their poverty level.

Aside from which, arguing we should do more in Ethiopia is not an argument to do less in Ukraine. They're two different places with different circumstances.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
It's got nothing to do with their skin color or their poverty level.

Aside from which, arguing we should do more in Ethiopia is not an argument to do less in Ukraine. They're two different places with different circumstances.
You really don't know why US politicians are yelling "rape and murder" toward Ukraine but not toward Ethiopia, do you?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
You really don't know why US politicians are yelling "rape and murder" toward Ukraine but not toward Ethiopia, do you?

I'd love to know how you ruled out all other explanations besides the skin color of the residents and their median household income. Do you think maybe, just maybe, it has to do with the involvement of the country that poses the largest threat to us on the planet?

And again, arguing we should be more involved in situation A is not an argument for us to change our involvement in situation B.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I'd love to know how you ruled out all other explanations besides their skin color of the residents and their median household income.

And again, arguing we should be more involved in situation A is not an argument for us to change our involvement in situation B.
I'm not the one defending our politicians.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
You know what I was saying and why I was saying it. No need to further defend it in my opinion.

You were saying it to make a silly accusation about US motives for involvement in Ukraine that made no sense.

I agree, there's no need to further defend such things.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Liberty of Ukrainian people?

[Runs away fast]
Liberty of the Ukrainian people or “democracy” is the excuse repeatedly given, but the reason is purely military industrial profit…
“They profit from war, and they push for war, and they even hope to profit more from bloodshed, from destruction, and somehow do not escalate for the scale of nuclear war,” Yurii Sheliazhenko, the executive secretary of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, told Democracy Nowin late March.


As well as profits for technology corporations and governmental digital surveillance and control of citizens…
 

lukethethird

unknown member
I suspect that would take more time than I have.

You can start here:

CFR is a New York based think take influencing US foreign policy consisting of CIA directors, US heads of state, bankers, lawyers, CEOs, wonderful peace of war propaganda. It's no wonder you follow the mainstream media narrative.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I'd love to know how you ruled out all other explanations besides the skin color of the residents and their median household income. Do you think maybe, just maybe, it has to do with the involvement of the country that poses the largest threat to us on the planet?

And again, arguing we should be more involved in situation A is not an argument for us to change our involvement in situation B.

Yeah, I don't think the US chooses whom to aid based on skin color or out of the goodness of its heart either. I believe it's primarily about geopolitics. The main concern of the US is not skin color, not human rights, and not democracy. It's geopolitics and reduction of risk from threats to its interests, such as China and Russia.

It makes sense for the US to aid Ukraine, and in this case, American geopolitical interests happen to align with a sound humanitarian and ethical cause (i.e., fending off a hostile, imperialist invasion). The US isn't as committed to helping Ethiopia or, say, Yemen as it is to helping Ukraine or Taiwan simply because aiding the latter two serves American interests much more deeply. That's understandable: it's unfeasible to help every country in the world where problems are happening. Every country needs to prioritize some issues and concerns.
 
Top