Sausages
HIGH PRIEST IN THE TEMPLE OF GG/SNSD
- Feb 27, 2007
- 6,397
- 9,189
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Luton Town
Ignoring? I haven't ignored anything mate. As I say, I simply presented alternative reports. I am prepared to give them as much credit as a statement from the UKR government though. I try to consider the objective of the report and the content of the report and add it to my understanding. (see epistemology below)
BOTH SIDES ARE PRODUCING PROPAGANDA. As for examples - where is the balanced reporting that governs YOUR view? Or does what you read and hear simply accord with your own world view thus is the onus is placed on the counter argument? I deliberatly read things that DON'T agree with my world view because it is important to attempt to get a balanced view. The fact is, as I stated - propaganda is pretty much all we read and devour. I use some independant journos for this understanding (The Saturday Paper, Scott Ritter, Mary Kostakidis, Peter Cronau, Caitlin Johnstone, Sy Hersh etc) Do those people have agendas too? Yes, of course. But they present LESS of a corporate and/or Murdoch-driven view than the BBC, News Ltd , AP, the Washington Post, the NY Times, the WSJ etc. (the last 3, incidentally, do offer in some reports at least an effort to provide a balance).
I'm Anti-imperialist. I recall Vietnam, Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc. More recently, Venezuela, Syria. The fact that "innocent people get killed" is, to some extent because the west/USA decided to intervene in a foreign power's government, ostensibly to protect it's own interests. And that's the kicker - in geopolitics, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, just permanent interests. So, you must therefore consider the involvement by the USA in initiating those conflicts from that perspective. What did they get out of those conflicts? That the USA routinely overthrows otherwise democratically elected governments for its own interests, as the previous link shows, cannot reasonaly be argued against. This goes into my next point: is democracy, as we understand it, the best system for EVERYONE in the world? Some cultures prefer and are familiar with operating within otherwise autocratic estates. That WE feel aggrieved is western imperialism at the core. If they see our system of government and feel, as a society, that it sucks...then who are we to force democracy down their throats?
Yes, Assad, Hussein, Pol Pot etc were bad dudes. But, if you say you champion border/national sovereignty, you cannot then send in the World Police to bring democracy without compromising the very principle you claim to uphold! So, what were the motivations to remove those dictators by a foreign power? Was it out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, and it would naive to suggest it. But, the USA is happy to see it's OWN citizens slaughtered weekly, so it becomes questionable that "liberating a people" and "instilling democracy" is the primary motivation.
Any view that totally embraces it's own righteousness is tyranny. Again, to suggest you champion democracy means you are prepared to give air to alternative, challenging positions that you may not agree with. If your definition of democracy is to live in an echo chamber, then you are espousing a non-democratic viewpoint. This is, as the digital age is showing, democracy's biggest problem. In a simplistic example, if 51% agree with a course of action or a policy, then it means 49% don't. Is that ok? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is it the best system we have? Well, probably. The key being not everyone will agree with everything all the time. Again, if that is your definition of democracy ie, everyone agreeing 100% of the time with 100% of the policies/decisions, then it is misguided.
Epistemology is concerned not JUST with data, but also WHERE the data comes from, it's usefulness, the capacity to be understood and the limits that aforementioned impose. We cannot therefore simply see data as knowledge, because all information must be assessed through those filters. Hence why informing yourself form many angles, whether you concur or not, is a good idea and what appears to be sadly lacking here.
I presented information contrary to the majority view. The responses I got were, to my mind, as absent of evidence as what you suggest mine were.
Of course! And with that in mind, why was China's recent de-escalation proposal rejected? Why were Israel's and Turkey's peace plans similarly rejected last year? Were they "not advantageous" to UKR? Most likely yes. So, if the definition of a suitable peace deal is UKR getting what it wants, at the expense of the other combatant, is that not punitive and hardly in the spirit of stopping the bloodshed? Again, refer to the statement on geopolitical interests. I'll note that when Russia invaded Crimea, there wasn't similar outrage by the west, which reinforces the point.
I am appalled at such a story - but, at least I understand you have a personal and emotional connection to the violence. Which naturally will govern the tone of your posting. But, emotion often overrides rational discourse.
Finally, consult Amnesty International's UKR 2021 report - that will give a pre-war assessment of UKR liberty. They were, not surprisingly, hardly the bastions of "freedom and democracy" that the war propaganda would have you (all) believe. Do we do similarly? Yes, although perhaps we have more avenues of challenging the government agencies which otherwise curtail liberty. This year, for example, we have refused to allow the UN to view, monitor and assess our jails and the conditions and situations of the prisoners therein. Furthermore, 36% of prisoners are in jail on remand without conviction, sometimes for crimes that wouldn't impose a custodial sentence even were they convicted. Those are but 2 examples, I'm sure there'd be more.
To suggest we have an inalienable duty or right, as a western nation, to bring our vision of "freedom and democracy" to the world, and to accuse (in this case) Russia of crimes that we ourselves commit (you mentioned genocide before? Our history with First Nation's people bears examining) as the justification for such an action is beyond arrogant. If these issues are the driving force behind the outrage, then why weren't more people campaigning about Russian autocratic excess daily, prior to the recent events in UKR? To feel uncomfortable with the truth is fine. To label the speaker as...whatever appellation you lot award me....is exactly WHY our liberty and democratic values are being eroded. You'll note in the last 2 paragraphs I used liberty and not freedom - contrary to the popular view, they are manifestly different.
Last edited:
