Why Should Americans Care About Ukraine?

Author: ILikePie5

Posts

Total: 71
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Countries and people have been fighting for thousands of years. Why should we waste our money and suffer economically trying to “protect Ukraine.” Everyone knows that if Russia tried to invade NATO, or another allied country of the US, they’d get nuked.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Well, the first reason is simply that we can afford it. The US government wastes billions every year. It can afford to throw a few billion at a worthy cause. The second reason is, if I may be permitted a little cheesiness, "With great power comes great responsibility." If there was someone getting beat up in front of us, and we could help them with very little risk to ourselves, I'd like to think that most of us would help. In Ukraine, there are 44 million people who are being attacked are faced with the prospect of foreign domination and subjugation, whether directly or through a puppet regime. We can help at very little risk and, relatively speaking, very little cost to ourselves. When you can do the things that America can do, but you don't do them, then when the bad things happen, they happen because of you. It's true that we can't help everyone; it does not then follow that we should not help anyone.

By the way, does anyone have any cheese? I think I'm running out.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
Well, the first reason is simply that we can afford it. The US government wastes billions every year. It can afford to throw a few billion at a worthy cause.
Better to throw that money domestically, no?

The second reason is, if I may be permitted a little cheesiness, "With great power comes great responsibility."
Cliche and false. China has immense power as well, and they’re not doing anything about it. I’d prefer to not get ripped off.

If there was someone getting beat up in front of us, and we could help them with very little risk to ourselves, I'd like to think that most of us would help.
Funny enough, legally, you’d have no obligation to help. I’d rather spend that money at home to help our veterans.

In Ukraine, there are 44 million people who are being attacked are faced with the prospect of foreign domination and subjugation, whether directly or through a puppet regime. We can help at very little risk and, relatively speaking, very little cost to ourselves. When you can do the things that America can do, but you don't do them, then when the bad things happen, they happen because of you. It's true that we can't help everyone; it does not then follow that we should not help anyone.
See this is the moral high ground that justified Iraq and Syria. Every “moral obligation” we have internationally takes us away from the immorality going on within the United States. Frankly, that’s a disgrace. Our job is not police the world, period. 

By the way, does anyone have any cheese? I think I'm running out.
Well, at least I now know that you don’t live in Wisconsin lol
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Better to throw that money domestically, no?
It's not an either-or. We can do both.
Cliche
Deliberately so.
and false. China has immense power as well, and they’re not doing anything about it. I’d prefer to not get ripped off.
Just because a country that has great power doesn't use it responsibly doesn't mean that the saying is false. The existence of responsibility does not imply that the responsibility will be met. Also, getting "ripped off" is a rather callous way to describe trying to save lives.
Funny enough, legally, you’d have no obligation to help.
In some places you might, but it's completely beside the point. This isn't a question of law, but of morality.
I’d rather spend that money at home to help our veterans.
It's not an either-or.
See this is the moral high ground that justified Iraq and Syria.
Past failures do not justify current inaction.
Every “moral obligation” we have internationally takes us away from the immorality going on within the United States.
False. It's still not an either-or.
Our job is not police the world, period.
Again, just because we can't help everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't help anyone.
Well, at least I now know that you don’t live in Wisconsin lol
You underestimate my power. Put me in France, and I'll use so much cheese the French will wine.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
It's not an either-or. We can do both.
No. Our first priority lies domestically.

Just because a country that has great power doesn't use it responsibly doesn't mean that the saying is false. The existence of responsibility does not imply that the responsibility will be met. Also, getting "ripped off" is a rather callous way to describe trying to save lives.
And “saving lives” is another dog whistle for even more conflict. We can’t save the lives of everyone. And it’s immoral to choose Ukraine for example over those in Yemen or Syria. You can’t make a moral argument here. Conflict is just a part of humanity.

In some places you might, but it's completely beside the point. This isn't a question of law, but of morality.
And the morality is cloudy because of opportunity cost. In any scenario helping vets and others domestically is far more important for the President of the United States.

It's not an either-or.
It is because your moral obligation means that we should do everything possible. I’m surprised you’re not outright saying we should send troops. That’s the far larger moral thing to do.

Again, just because we can't help everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't help anyone.
Again the morality factor. Why should we choose one over the other. Morality is a double edged sword. It’s the same argument with illegal immigration tbh.

You underestimate my power. Put me in France, and I'll use so much cheese the French will wine.
French need to figure out how to prevent invasions from Belgium first lol
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Countries and people have been fighting for thousands of years. Why should we waste our money and suffer economically trying to “protect Ukraine.” Everyone knows that if Russia tried to invade NATO, or another allied country of the US, they’d get nuked.

"Europeans who remember their history understand better than most that there is no security, no safety, in the appeasement of evil."

-Ronald Reagan
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@oromagi
Ya for Europeans, not Americans
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ILikePie5
Most Americans are Europeans.

By the logic of Incel.

I own you.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
"Europeans who remember their history understand better than most that there is no security, no safety, in the appeasement of evil."

Biden financed the slaughter of Ukrainians with USA motorists.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
The lesson of Munich, in international relations, refers to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler at the Munich Conference in September 1938. To avoid war, France and the United Kingdom permitted Nazi Germany to incorporate the Sudetenland. Earlier acts of appeasement included the Allied inaction towards the remilitarization of the Rhineland and the Anschluss of Austria, while subsequent ones included inaction to the First Vienna Award, the annexation of the remainder of Czech Lands to form the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, as well as the 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania forcing it to cede the Klaipėda Region. The policy of appeasement underestimated Hitler's ambitions by believing that enough concessions would secure a lasting peace.  Today, the agreement is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement toward Germany,  and a diplomatic triumph for Hitler. It facilitated the German takeover of Czechoslovakia and caused Hitler to believe that the Western Allies would not risk war over Poland the following year, an assessment openly expressed in his famous quote: “I saw my enemies in Munich, and they are worms

Putin  has been invading Ukraine in slow motion since Ukraine pushed out Putin's puppet government in 2014.
Putin invaded Georgia using similar justifications.  If successful in the Ukraine, Putin has already made the same justifications for absorbing Belarus and Lithuania.
 
History tells us that Putin will  seek  more or less continual expansion until he is stopped. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Every green energy idiot has blood on their hands with all the BILLIONS sent to Russia to pay for green energy.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@oromagi
Putin  has been invading Ukraine in slow motion since Ukraine pushed out Putin's puppet government in 2014.
Putin invaded Georgia using similar justifications.  If successful in the Ukraine, Putin has already made the same justifications for absorbing Belarus and Lithuania.
Belarus is allied with Russia. Lithuania is part of NATO. He’s not going to risk war over that imo
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
A paranoid maniacal despot invades the sovereign territory of the Ukraine, in a fashion not seen since the last paranoid maniacal European despot invaded Czechoslovakia in 1939.

And you make it out to be a Green Energy issue.

The only similarity that there is with U.S motoring...Is that you're a dipstick.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
No. Our first priority lies domestically.
Yes, the first priority of the American government is American citizens. That does not mean that we cannot help others as well. It is not an either-or.
And “saving lives” is another dog whistle for even more conflict. We can’t save the lives of everyone. And it’s immoral to choose Ukraine for example over those in Yemen or Syria. You can’t make a moral argument here. Conflict is just a part of humanity.
Yes, I can make a moral argument. Once again, just because we cannot help everyone does not mean that we should not help anyone.
And the morality is cloudy because of opportunity cost. In any scenario helping vets and others domestically is far more important for the President of the United States.
It is still not an either-or.
It is because your moral obligation means that we should do everything possible. I’m surprised you’re not outright saying we should send troops. That’s the far larger moral thing to do.
Sending troops would have a high risk of starting WWIII, which does not quite qualify as saving lives.
Again the morality factor. Why should we choose one over the other. Morality is a double edged sword. It’s the same argument with illegal immigration tbh.
Yes, again with the morality factor. Morality matters.
French need to figure out how to prevent invasions from Belgium first lol
Heh. Never going to happen. Every single time, the French say, "They won't do that again." And every time, it happens again.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
The only similarity that there is with U.S motoring...Is that you're a dipstick.
That's no consolation to the Ukrainians dying from the tanks, rockets and bombs Biden paid for by purchasing 500 million barrels of oil from Putin at around 100 dollars a barrel. But do feel good that oil well isn't in your backyard. The blood isn't in your backyard either.

If you can't see it, you can't feel guilty. Right? 
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,322
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
You cutoff oil and their economy tanks. No pun intended. Problem is Biden’s poll numbers would go into the 20s cause gas would be 6 dollars. Sucks to go from energy Independent to relying on Russia huh
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,701
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Zelenskey and others are CIA puppets, I do not care what happens to them
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yes, the first priority of the American government is American citizens. That does not mean that we cannot help others as well. It is not an either-or.

Either domestic spending is a priority or it is not. Our country has plenty of things to work on internally that clearly take a priority over feel-good projects.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
NAME BRAND AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AND ASIAN CORPORATIONS SHOULD LEAVE RUSSIA NOW ∴ IF THEY GIVE A SINGLE SHIT ABOUT HUMAN LIFE
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
and double that for saudi arabia
Incel-chud
Incel-chud's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 434
2
3
8
Incel-chud's avatar
Incel-chud
2
3
8
-->
@SirAnonymous
Just because a country that has great power doesn't use it responsibly doesn't mean that the saying is false. The existence of responsibility does not imply that the responsibility will be met. Also, getting "ripped off" is a rather callous way to describe trying to save lives.
More lives would be saved by the ukraine completely surrendering as well. Why is that not an option?
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
"Priority" does not mean "the only thing we can do," and saving lives is not a "feel-good project."
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Incel-chud
If the US was invaded, would you advocate surrender to save lives?
Incel-chud
Incel-chud's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 434
2
3
8
Incel-chud's avatar
Incel-chud
2
3
8
-->
@oromagi
History tells us that Putin will  seek  more or less continual expansion until he is stopped.
I am pretty sure he would stop with the former USSR, we are more likely to avoid WW3 by just letting him do it, and bonus it will neither effect us or the people who live in those regions, because they will go from living in a shithole country, to another shithole country, but with a different name. The only way these citizens are affected is by resisting.

America should not be policing the world. We shouldn't use our power to bully other countries to do what we want, completely ignoring russia and it's actions would make both America, and Europe safer. The same with allowing China to take taiwan and hong Kong.

World peace is literally achievable within our lifetimes, by just having a non interventionist policy.

We can stop all death and destruction from war, very easily just by minding our own business. The seperatist regions of Ukraine is all Putin wanted and wants. Those regions even want Putin to be their leader, otherwise they wouldn't have rebelled.


Incel-chud
Incel-chud's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 434
2
3
8
Incel-chud's avatar
Incel-chud
2
3
8
-->
@SirAnonymous
If the US was invaded, would you advocate surrender to save lives?
I wouldn't give a shit if Ukraine helped us, let's put it that way. there is enough republicans here with guns that an invasion would be a bad ideal. If we were taken over, it would only affect america and literally nobody else though, so kinda stupid if other countries defend America
Incel-chud
Incel-chud's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 434
2
3
8
Incel-chud's avatar
Incel-chud
2
3
8
Here is the Ukraine's argument for it's defense

Derp, there is less geographical distance from Russia if they take us over
That is such a shit argument, nothing about how a buffer zone actually does a damn thing for Europe, just a stupid argument in general, and I have been watching CNN, that is literally the best argument they have had to protect the Ukraine. If there were a better more complex argument, CNN would have already aired it

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,440
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Incel-chud
Eh,
WW1, people get too involved, Too much War occurs.
WW2, People avoid getting involved, Too much War occurs.
Incel-chud
Incel-chud's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 434
2
3
8
Incel-chud's avatar
Incel-chud
2
3
8
-->
@Lemming
WW2 could have been avoided with appeasement, however if they wanted interventionist policies, than they needed to be tougher early on. Hitler could have been stopped early. Just like I believe we should ignore the Ukraine situation, but if I was president and wanted to intervene, I'd do some emergency orders with the Ukranians and force a resolution to make them a part of NATO quickly, then send American troops to the border and dare Russia to make a move.

The only two ethical choices, are to take the matter seriously or non intervention, but this limp wristed response is stupid
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
The old, give the bully your lunch money and he just won't bother you anymore. We know that doesn't work.