If I were an accelerationist, I would want the US to overextend into as many conflicts as possible, and I would want those conflicts to last as long as possible, in order to weaken it. I don’t, because I’m not, because that’s a lie.
Do you have another phrase or word for advocating for Russian regional superiority knowing their intent on reunification of the former Soviet Union.
That’s exactly what you are doing though bud, you just don’t seem to see it. The Ukrainian conflict wouldn’t end with Ukraine surrendering, Russia will simply move to the next country and force Ukrainians to fight for them.
I don’t “know” their intent on reunification of the Soviet Union and neither do you. They say the same thing in every conflict we’ve ever been in, the enemy will keep expanding forever so we have no choice but to fight. Remember “Domino Theory” from Vietnam? How’d that play out? Remember how with the War on Terror, it was “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here.” Well, we’re not fighting them over there, so where are they? It’s the easiest propaganda line ever because you don’t need any evidence and you can apply it to anyone under any circumstances.
As for a word for what you’re describing “isolationist” or “dove” would be most appropriate. Peacenik. Defeatist. Pinko. Hell, you could even go with coward, if you like. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of derogatory terms for people advocating peace, it’s a very common thing to deride, historically speaking. Just go back and look at what people were calling me when I opposed the War on Terror if you need some inspiration.
You should, they’re not quiet about it at all. None of those were invasions prior to us intervention, you can blame a lot of shit on the US but Ukraine ain’t one.
Nope, isolationists and doves stfu because they don’t want to be involved. You’re neither peacnik nor pinko because Ukraines surrender attains no left leaning goal, it does just the opposite in allowing an authoritarian shithead to take over yet more of the world… Again. This has nothing to do with the war on terror, not being shitty in one area doesn’t mean you aren’t shitty in another, get a grip.
Please elaborate how opposing military aid to a country on the other side of the world is not an isolationist stance. You just said, “because they don’t want to get involved.” That’s my stance, I don’t want to get involved.
I don’t think you know what any of those terms mean tbh. Or rather, I think you know what they mean and are pretending that they don’t mean what they do because you’re acting in bad faith.
Again isolationists isolate themselves, meaning they don’t meddle… Like insisting their opinion on a matter they have no legitimate interest in. You’re involving yourself right now dumb dumb, if you don’t want to be involved… Don’t involve yourself.
That’s a completely ridiculous take. That’s not isolationism, that’s political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?
Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That’s what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.
If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you’re trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.
a person favoring a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.
Is the literal definition bud.
That’s not a logical assumption dude, your lack of understanding of anything has nothing to do with the veracity of my position. Again, you’re deflecting.
In what way is that accelerationist?
If I were an accelerationist, I would want the US to overextend into as many conflicts as possible, and I would want those conflicts to last as long as possible, in order to weaken it. I don’t, because I’m not, because that’s a lie.
Do you have another phrase or word for advocating for Russian regional superiority knowing their intent on reunification of the former Soviet Union.
That’s exactly what you are doing though bud, you just don’t seem to see it. The Ukrainian conflict wouldn’t end with Ukraine surrendering, Russia will simply move to the next country and force Ukrainians to fight for them.
I don’t “know” their intent on reunification of the Soviet Union and neither do you. They say the same thing in every conflict we’ve ever been in, the enemy will keep expanding forever so we have no choice but to fight. Remember “Domino Theory” from Vietnam? How’d that play out? Remember how with the War on Terror, it was “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here.” Well, we’re not fighting them over there, so where are they? It’s the easiest propaganda line ever because you don’t need any evidence and you can apply it to anyone under any circumstances.
As for a word for what you’re describing “isolationist” or “dove” would be most appropriate. Peacenik. Defeatist. Pinko. Hell, you could even go with coward, if you like. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of derogatory terms for people advocating peace, it’s a very common thing to deride, historically speaking. Just go back and look at what people were calling me when I opposed the War on Terror if you need some inspiration.
You should, they’re not quiet about it at all. None of those were invasions prior to us intervention, you can blame a lot of shit on the US but Ukraine ain’t one.
Nope, isolationists and doves stfu because they don’t want to be involved. You’re neither peacnik nor pinko because Ukraines surrender attains no left leaning goal, it does just the opposite in allowing an authoritarian shithead to take over yet more of the world… Again. This has nothing to do with the war on terror, not being shitty in one area doesn’t mean you aren’t shitty in another, get a grip.
Please elaborate how opposing military aid to a country on the other side of the world is not an isolationist stance. You just said, “because they don’t want to get involved.” That’s my stance, I don’t want to get involved.
I don’t think you know what any of those terms mean tbh. Or rather, I think you know what they mean and are pretending that they don’t mean what they do because you’re acting in bad faith.
Again isolationists isolate themselves, meaning they don’t meddle… Like insisting their opinion on a matter they have no legitimate interest in. You’re involving yourself right now dumb dumb, if you don’t want to be involved… Don’t involve yourself.
That’s not an argument, that’s deflection.
That’s a completely ridiculous take. That’s not isolationism, that’s political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?
Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That’s what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.
If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you’re trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.
This is very blatant bad faith.
Is the literal definition bud.
That’s not a logical assumption dude, your lack of understanding of anything has nothing to do with the veracity of my position. Again, you’re deflecting.
That’s literally what I’m arguing for. How could you possibly construe that definition as supporting your position as opposed to mine?