Share
40,935 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 508
clock Created with Sketch.
06/01/23
18:19
Share
Originally posted by moorookamick:
↑
I totally agree with you but I recognise my own value bias here , unlike many posters on these threads, and i want to understand why the Russians invaded in the first instance just as historians post WW2 wanted to understand why the Japs hit Pearl Harbour. or why the Americans invaded Iraq etc. This thread relies almost entirely on how the western media is reporting the war and of course we all know that that may not be entirely accurate as evidenced by past media reporting on past wars. As someone said: "Truth is the first casualty of war". We make "self evident" assumptions on what happens behind closed doors in Moscow, Kiev & Washington without the awareness that we even dont know what happens in our Commonwealth Cabinet Room in our society that's assumed open & transparent (this point has been made a few days ago by an eminent Aus journalist but I cant find the sourse at present. The principle involved in this war is, IMO, as follows: -The right of a sovereign country to make its own laws and alliances vs -The right of a country to neutralise perceived sovereign external threats Rather than look at it in the context of the current war....its simply too emotive we can look at it at arms length, IMO: -Take the Cuban Crisis for example. The US saw the siloing of USSR missiles in Cuba as a US sovereign threat...hence the Cuban crisis. -Or to take it a bit closer to home. Lets say that the PNG Government wished to join the Shanghai Co-Operation Agreement and that meant siloing Chinese weapons of mass destruction aimed at Aus. In the early stages would we stand by and say that that is PNG's sovereign right and we'll simply cop it sweet? OR, would we initiallytry to engineer regime change so that PNG ops out of the Shanghai Co-Op Agreement and as such not allow Chinese WMD on its soil and, if that failed , would we invade and force a regime change? IMO, yes. World peace is based on a fair and equitable rules based order, not on the law of the powerful which, in the past has always been a prescription for war. So in summary, if we back the Ukraine or Georgia sovereign right to silo US & UK WMDs aimed at Russia, then in principle we should have no qualms about PNG or East Timor harbouring Chinese C7C WMDs ...eh? As the old saying goes, we should be careful what we wish for...eh?
Expand
-The right of a country to neutralise perceived sovereign external threats I do get emotionally involved at times . When I percieve a lackof humanity . Particularly lies will do it . But apart from that I get frustrated with nonsense . We had the nazi excuse for invasion , we had the protecting our brothers slavs excuse and we had the protecting russia excuse .Now please tell me , who in their right mind would ever attack Russia with it's nukes ??? (Not that anyone has the slightest interest in doing it anyway !) I wonder do people not think it through or is it just completely disingenuous ?? PS btw , no nukes on any old iron curtain countries the US has strenuously avoided any direct conflict with USSR/russia MAD does have a meaning