4 ms·

Someone now needs to buy NYT and NY Post and deny the neocons pro-war platforms.

by Prbeek 2y ago

mmooss 2y ago
How are neocons involved? They are extinct in Washington and most other places. Who is a neocon now?
- itsoktocry 2y ago
  Most of the Democratic Party?
rayiner 2y ago
They could publish horoscopes and it would be an improvement.
micromacrofoot 2y ago
the NYT seems to be rather willing to post opinions like this already
superb_dev 2y ago
Yes I’m sure the billionaires who would buy a newspaper to impose their own editorial are be anti-war
drawkward 2y ago
Anti-Putin != pro-war pro-Ukraine != pro-war Defending one's sovereign territory is not being pro-war. Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive.
- itsoktocry 2y ago
  >Defending one's sovereign territory is not being pro-war. Uh, they can't protect their own territory. >Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive This is a child-like representation of the conflict. Good and bad, bullies and those standing up to them. This didn't start in 2022, believe it or not. Russia should not have invaded. But they did, it happened. Unless you or your children are ready to go over there and fight in the conflict, what do you think the outcome here should be? Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing? I truly don't understand. This idea of "oh my gosh, one country invaded another" as if this hasn't been the entirety of the history of civilization is strange.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing? Judging by the track record so far, we can expect vague comments seething with resentment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Russian_red_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jemmyw 2y ago
    > Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing? Given the track record of the US and Russia since getting nuclear weapons, yes? Nukes might be pretty good at stopping someone invading your country but they're probably not a great help if you're the invader and you want to occupy the place you're invading. Especially if it's right next door
    - XorNot 2y ago
      It's only clear they're good at stopping invasions by history. You could (and possibly are) seeing the precedent set that border disputes can escalate to kinetic conflicts without nukes getting involved - the problem is no one knows where the line is and historically that kept things calm. Who even knows if that's still the case though? If India goes after Kashmir so they genuinely think Pakistan would risk annihilation defending it if it was lost? Russia could easily dispose of NATO as an ongoing problem by losing a war with the Baltics if the US then disregards Article 5 because "well it's just not worth risking nuclear war". Appeasement doesn't work, but apparently we all forgot even the simplified history of WW2.

Someone now needs to buy NYT and NY Post and deny the neocons pro-war platforms.

by Prbeek 2y ago

Someone now needs to buy NYT and NY Post and deny the neocons pro-war platforms.

mmooss 2y ago

How are neocons involved? They are extinct in Washington and most other places. Who is a neocon now?

itsoktocry 2y ago
Most of the Democratic Party?

rayiner 2y ago

They could publish horoscopes and it would be an improvement.

micromacrofoot 2y ago

the NYT seems to be rather willing to post opinions like this already

superb_dev 2y ago

Yes I’m sure the billionaires who would buy a newspaper to impose their own editorial are be anti-war

drawkward 2y ago

Anti-Putin != pro-war pro-Ukraine != pro-war Defending one's sovereign territory is not being pro-war. Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive.

itsoktocry 2y ago
>Defending one's sovereign territory is not being pro-war. Uh, they can't protect their own territory. >Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive This is a child-like representation of the conflict. Good and bad, bullies and those standing up to them. This didn't start in 2022, believe it or not. Russia should not have invaded. But they did, it happened. Unless you or your children are ready to go over there and fight in the conflict, what do you think the outcome here should be? Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing? I truly don't understand. This idea of "oh my gosh, one country invaded another" as if this hasn't been the entirety of the history of civilization is strange.
- drawkward 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    [flagged]
- mopsi 2y ago
  > Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing? Judging by the track record so far, we can expect vague comments seething with resentment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Russian_red_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jemmyw 2y ago
  > Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing? Given the track record of the US and Russia since getting nuclear weapons, yes? Nukes might be pretty good at stopping someone invading your country but they're probably not a great help if you're the invader and you want to occupy the place you're invading. Especially if it's right next door
  - XorNot 2y ago
    It's only clear they're good at stopping invasions by history. You could (and possibly are) seeing the precedent set that border disputes can escalate to kinetic conflicts without nukes getting involved - the problem is no one knows where the line is and historically that kept things calm. Who even knows if that's still the case though? If India goes after Kashmir so they genuinely think Pakistan would risk annihilation defending it if it was lost? Russia could easily dispose of NATO as an ongoing problem by losing a war with the Baltics if the US then disregards Article 5 because "well it's just not worth risking nuclear war". Appeasement doesn't work, but apparently we all forgot even the simplified history of WW2.